|
On October 27 2011 08:07 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote:
The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day. What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue. And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes....
You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest.
The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason.
|
On October 26 2011 18:41 T.O.P. wrote:
It's an example of the majority infringing on the rights of the minority. The law unfairly targets people of Chinese descent by banning one of their cultural traditions.
My cult believe in killing the Chinese people. Laws prohibit this. We only have a few members, so they're picking on the minority as well.
Sarcasm to get a point across. These laws are to protect species, not to infringe on someone's beliefs in killing a shark to put an almost tasteless shark fin in their soup.
|
On October 27 2011 08:45 Body_Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 08:07 oldgregg wrote:On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote:
The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day. What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue. And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes.... You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest. The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason.
Why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument? I'm not saying it is or isn't just wondering why cruelty to another species isn't a good enough reason to stop doing something. I hope it's not the humans are carnivorous thing.
|
On October 27 2011 08:39 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 08:35 Enki wrote:On October 27 2011 08:26 NoobSkills wrote:On October 26 2011 18:12 Leeoku wrote:So my home town (mississauga) in ontario, canada just banned it recently. Today, the big move was when Toronto decided to ban it too. This prohibits sale/consumption of the product. Reason being, fishers just caught a shark, cut the fin and threw it back into the water (They may as well have kept the shark for other meat etc). Also there is the argument the shark population has been endangered because of it. The main problem with finning is throwing a finless shark back into the ocean. It seems more of an ethics case than overhunting. Still an issue but ethics seems to be the defining arguement. Also a key point, most people dont use shark meat , so 90%+ of the animal is wastedWhy shark fin? It is a traditional, cultural Chinese dish. I believe it is 2nd in rank in terms of delicacy next to abalone. High quality fin can go up to $1,100/kg. Obviously the asian community is very upset about this. Stores/restaurants have expressed rage at loss in sales and other Chinese people think it is hindering their food culture. Thoughts/opinions if the ban came to your town? City Councillors were treated to a standing ovation from a packed public gallery after they voted overwhelmingly for a bylaw banning the possession, sale and consumption of shark fin.
Restaurateurs were upset that the ban targets shark fin soup, a delicacy in Chinese restaurants, while conservationists hailed the decision as a way to protect sharks from possible extinction.
“This is amazing,” said Rob Stewart, who produced the documentary film Sharkwater and has been lobbying Toronto councillors for weeks to take action.
“My heart has all the warm butterflies inside,” a jubilant Stewart said after the vote. “I couldn’t feel better.”
Stewart said Toronto’s move, in addition to similar decisions by Mississauga, Oakville and Brantford, ups the pressure on the federal government to ban shark fin imports to Canada.
“I think it will set a precedent morally that Canada wants to ban shark fins and I think a federal ban will follow shortly after,” he said. “When your biggest city comes out and says 38-4 that they want a world where sharks have a future, I think the federal government will act, too.”
Council supported a ban despite a warning from city solicitor Anna Kinastowski that if the city were taken to court, there would be “challenges” in defending a ban.
Chinese restaurateurs, who had turned out in big numbers to oppose the ban, will look at their legal options, said Barbara Chiu, executive director of the Toronto Chinese Business Association
“Obviously, the businesses are very disappointed about the outcome and the whole process,” Chiu said. “The council didn’t listen to the solicitor.
“We are considering this (court action) but we don’t have any conclusion right now. It’s the businesses that are considering it. They will talk about it.”
Sonny Liu, manager of Kyu Shon Hong, a Dundas St. W. grocery store said he sells about 2 kilograms of shark fin a year. He couldn’t say his exact revenue from the fins, though one fin can sell for up to $1,100 a kilogram. As for the ban, he said, “I don’t mind, but I feel it’s unfair.”
Steven Chiu, owner of another store on Dundas, said the ban will cost him between $5,000 to $6,000.
He sells 50 or so annually, mostly during Chinese New Year, They vary in price according to size, the tail fin being the most expensive. “This is crazy,” he said about the ban.
The debate began Tuesday afternoon with Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker floating an inflatable shark in the council chamber, prompting a 10-minute recess to retrieve the shark.
Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday deplored the practice of removing fins and throwing the sharks back in the water to die, but he said it wasn’t council’s role to intervene.
“It’s not our job to police the world’s oceans,” Holyday said.
Councillors supporting the ban argued that it was no different than banning the sale of other items such as ivory from elephant tusks to protect the species.
About 150 protesters gathered had gathered outside Toronto city hall in a rally organized by local Chinese-Canadian business groups. Many wore signs saying “An unfair and irresponsible act.”
“If they are talking about species endangerment and the shark fishery, it should be addressed to the fed government instead of being discussed at a city council meeting,” said Chiu.
Asked if her group would oppose a national ban on shark fin products, Chiu said they would like to work with Ottawa on ways to combat illegal shark fishing but “we are not suggesting a national ban because the shark fishery is one of the major industries in Canada.
“We should not only ban one part of the shark, one part of the fish.”
The proposed bylaw would impose steep fines on anyone caught selling, consuming or possessing shark fin: $5,000 for a first offence, $25,000 for a second, $100,000 for a third or subsequent offence. Restaurant inspectors would check for shark fin during the regular course of their work.
Shark fin soup is a traditional Chinese delicacy often served at weddings. Proponents of a ban argue “finning”, the practice of severing fins from live sharks and tossing them back in the ocean to die, is inhumane. They also say certain shark species have been endangered by demand for fins.
Earlier this month, council’s licensing and standards committee voted 6-0 in favour of a ban. Its chair, Councillor Cesar Palacio (Ward 17, Davenport), said Mayor Rob Ford supported the decision.
Mississauga, Brantford and Oakville recently enacted bans, as did California. An NDP MP plans to propose a national ban, and Councillor Michelle Berardinetti (Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest), whose husband is a Liberal MPP, said she knows provincial politicians will seek an Ontario ban.
The licensing and standards committee voted against the advice of city licensing chief Bruce Robertson, who argued the city does not have the authority to ban shark fin. Top municipal lawyer George Rust-D’Eye, hired by the pro-ban Berardinetti, told the committee that Robertson was incorrect.
But Rust-D’Eye acknowledged that a lawsuit challenging a ban could result in a prolonged court battle that could end up in the Supreme Court.
The city would give restaurant owners until September 2012 to sell shark fin they had already purchased before the ban was enacted. http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1075837--council-bans-sale-consumption-of-shark-fin?bn=1 Even though it isn't humane to throw that shark back into the water just to suffer that isn't my biggest issue with the fin soup. It is that millions of people are STARVING in Asia yet a huge source of food is being throw back into the ocean when it should be going to the people. Shark meat is contaminated by high levels of mercury, it's not exactly fit for daily human consumption so I can't see that working. Sorry, but I eat Fish, Shark, Alligator almost every day. The reports are about people who eat fish that are high in mercury every day for every meal. That is overpowering on the system, but eating it in moderate amounts is fine it passes through your system and then your system is ready for another round. I must admit however I am not sure how the sharks off the coast of Asia are, perhaps they might be more mercury heavy, but in limit this meat could still be used.
http://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm110591.htm
That's funny. I guess you know more about this then the FDA.
For pregnant women and young children, they don't advise eating shark meat, ever. Methylmercury is removed from your body naturally yes, but its a very long process.
http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/seafood/foodbornepathogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm115644.htm
Theres a chart for Methylmercury levels in commercial fish and shellfish. Guess which has some of the highest mercury levels?
Heres another chart, with pictures this time: http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/Whatfish_graphic.pdf
Eating as much fish as you do, I guess are lucky that you haven't had mercury poisoning.
|
On October 26 2011 20:57 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:But Chinese will defend anything China even if they actually disagree, apparently. Don't give me this fake loyalty. The more I learn about China, the less I respect it. Once again, an example of ignorance. Good Cantonese soup cost a lot of money to make. Even the soup my dad makes regularly costs $50-100 a pot. Also, your comment makes no sense. He said no soup is worth more than 5 dollar. You call that ignorance. It's his fucking opinion. Your argument just proves his point. You are both wrong and ignorant as well as unable to understand the reasoning of others or express your own opinion using reasoning. He's ignorant because he has never even tasted the soup before. Opinions can be ignorant. Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:
Knowing the prize would spoil the taste when eating it. Especially when you realize the context is in a third world country. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:
I hear the noises of Han Chinese bring good luck as a good luck charm. And the good news is, there's a Han Chinese for every one of us. Let's harvest them as a Chinese doesn't really need a nose. Immoral? Nooo, don't infringe on culture. If that's your culture, then cool. Hunting Han chinese seems much more dangerous than hunting sharks though.
Since we're freely expressing our opinions on the subject, I think China is a backwards country trying to hang on to too much archaic tradition while attempting to modernize its economy within a political framework that doesn't work. There's a huge social revolution coming in that country, and I can't wait for it to happen. Too many human beings are being abused and exploited, and they need to do something about it. While I'd love to write out a multi paged critique of the current Chinese government, I'll keep this about shark fin soup in Canada.
Frankly, if you're calling people ignorant for not having tried the soup or knowing about it, then you're missing the point. This thread isn't about culinary criticism or how much a dish costs, it's about Canada (finally) being willing to critique another culture and decide what we want in our country and what we do not. Shark fin soup should be banned outright in Canada (and any other civilized country for that matter). Period. This isn't a new issue. I'm amazed by how much mileage Gordan Ramsey's documentary has given it, but people have been talking about this for 20+ years. The harvesting methods employed to support the demand for what amounts to little more than a status symbol are barbaric and unsustainable. When you say things like we're ignorant for stepping on Chinese cultural traditions, it really shows me where you're at. China consumes a number of different items from endangered species as aphrodisiacs and status symbols. Guess what? A culture that values status and stupidity above responsible and sustainable environmental policy should be critiqued and told no. This is Canada, we're allowed to form policy around what we feel is most inclusive, not what ignorant and environmentally unaware Chinese people on the other side of the globe have done for the past 2000 years and want to continue for no other reason than tradition. When you have a billion people in your country who want to consume tiger penis or rhinoceros horn because they stupidly believe it to be an aphrodisiac while the environment suffers then its time to sober up.
You said in a previous post that Chinese think westerners are ignorant. That's nice, except that Canada has a very good human rights record, is one of the world leaders in alternative energy research, and over the past several hundred years has forged a very nice stable inclusive society that people want to live in. When Chinese people (who live in a country with a very poor human rights record, a country that cuts corners to produce unsafe and hazardous products, a country with little to no long term plans for sustainable or green energy, a country that only 25 years ago ran over protesting students with tanks, and a country that would rather keep their embarrassing screw ups secret rather than fixing the underlying problem) tell us we're ignorant for being critical of a negative environmentally irresponsible aspect of their culture -- even after how committed we've shown ourselves to be about respecting other cultures, we can rightfully ignore and laugh at them.
I support the ban 100%, I wish our country as a whole would ban it, I hope other countries follow suit, and if certain Chinese people don't understand why it's important that certain nations show leadership and take a stance on this important issue, then we don't need them in our country.
|
On October 27 2011 08:57 buickskylark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 08:45 Body_Shield wrote:On October 27 2011 08:07 oldgregg wrote:On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote:
The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day. What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue. And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes.... You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest. The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason. Why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument? I'm not saying it is or isn't just wondering why cruelty to another species isn't a good enough reason to stop doing something. I hope it's not the humans are carnivorous thing.
Just curious here...
If the fishermen shot the shark in the head before throwing it in the water, would that be animal cruelty also? If not, then the argument really has nothing at all to do with the actual product being sold. If so, well then I guess you are against any meat products being sold.
|
Please, bring politics into this and blame china and the "backward ass" chinese people, right?
|
On October 27 2011 09:02 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 08:57 buickskylark wrote:On October 27 2011 08:45 Body_Shield wrote:On October 27 2011 08:07 oldgregg wrote:On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote:
The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day. What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue. And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes.... You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest. The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason. Why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument? I'm not saying it is or isn't just wondering why cruelty to another species isn't a good enough reason to stop doing something. I hope it's not the humans are carnivorous thing. Just curious here... If the fishermen shot the shark in the head before throwing it in the water, would that be animal cruelty also? If not, then the argument really has nothing at all to do with the actual product being sold. If so, well then I guess you are against any meat products being sold.
Exactly, you can stop the animal cruelty (to the extent that it can be stopped I guess), but the original problem remains.
This is where the mass human driven extinction comes back around.
|
On October 27 2011 09:01 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 20:57 T.O.P. wrote:On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:But Chinese will defend anything China even if they actually disagree, apparently. Don't give me this fake loyalty. The more I learn about China, the less I respect it. Once again, an example of ignorance. Good Cantonese soup cost a lot of money to make. Even the soup my dad makes regularly costs $50-100 a pot. Also, your comment makes no sense. He said no soup is worth more than 5 dollar. You call that ignorance. It's his fucking opinion. Your argument just proves his point. You are both wrong and ignorant as well as unable to understand the reasoning of others or express your own opinion using reasoning. He's ignorant because he has never even tasted the soup before. Opinions can be ignorant. On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:
Knowing the prize would spoil the taste when eating it. Especially when you realize the context is in a third world country. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:
I hear the noises of Han Chinese bring good luck as a good luck charm. And the good news is, there's a Han Chinese for every one of us. Let's harvest them as a Chinese doesn't really need a nose. Immoral? Nooo, don't infringe on culture. If that's your culture, then cool. Hunting Han chinese seems much more dangerous than hunting sharks though. Since we're freely expressing our opinions on the subject, I think China is a backwards ass country trying to hang on to too much archaic tradition while attempting to modernize its economy within a political framework that doesn't work. There's a huge social revolution coming in that country, and I can't wait for it to happen. Too many human beings are being abused and exploited, and they need to do something about it. While I'd love to write out a multi paged critique of the current Chinese government, I'll keep this about shark fin soup in Canada. Frankly, if you're calling people ignorant for not having tried the soup or knowing about it, then you're missing the point. This thread isn't about culinary criticism or how much a dish costs, it's about Canada (finally) being willing to critique another culture and decide what we want in our country and what we do not. Shark fin soup should be banned outright in Canada (and any other civilized country for that matter). Period. This isn't a new issue. I'm amazed by how much mileage Gordan Ramsey's documentary has given it, but people have been talking about this for 20+ years. The harvesting methods employed to support the demand for what amounts to little more than a status symbol are barbaric and unsustainable. When you say things like we're ignorant for stepping on Chinese cultural traditions, it really shows me where you're at. China consumes a number of different items from endangered species as aphrodisiacs and status symbols. Guess what? A culture that values status and stupidity above responsible and sustainable environmental policy should be critiqued and told no. This is Canada, we're allowed to form policy around what we feel is most inclusive, not what ignorant and environmentally unaware Chinese people on the other side of the globe have done for the past 2000 years and want to continue for no other reason than tradition. When you have a billion people in your country who want to consume tiger penis or rhinoceros horn because they stupidly believe it to be an aphrodisiac while the environment suffers then its time to sober up. You said in a previous post that Chinese think westerners are ignorant. That's nice, except that Canada has a very good human rights record, is one of the world leaders in alternative energy research, and over the past several hundred years has forged a very nice stable inclusive society that people want to live in. When Chinese people (who live in a country with a very poor human rights record, a country that cuts corners to produce unsafe and hazardous products, a country with little to no long term plans for sustainable or green energy, a country that only 25 years ago ran over protesting students with tanks, and a country that would rather keep their embarrassing screw ups secret rather than fixing the underlying problem) tell us we're ignorant for being critical of a negative environmentally irresponsible aspect of their culture, we can rightfully ignore and laugh at them. I support the ban 100%, I wish our country as a whole would ban it, I hope other countries follow suit, and if certain Chinese people don't understand why it's important that certain nations show leadership and take a stance on this important issue, then we don't need them in our country.
Word - I agree 100%
I love all the people defending it by saying, "but but you've never tasted the soup!" That is irrelevant rofl
|
On October 26 2011 18:41 T.O.P. wrote:
It's an example of the majority infringing on the rights of the minority. The law unfairly targets people of Chinese descent by banning one of their cultural traditions.
in canada
where the native-born people dont eat shark
|
On October 27 2011 09:06 darkscream wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 18:41 T.O.P. wrote:
It's an example of the majority infringing on the rights of the minority. The law unfairly targets people of Chinese descent by banning one of their cultural traditions. in canada where the native-born people dont eat shark
The Inuit did and I think still do.
It's more of a Greenland-Iceland thing though
|
On October 27 2011 09:02 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 08:57 buickskylark wrote:On October 27 2011 08:45 Body_Shield wrote:On October 27 2011 08:07 oldgregg wrote:On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote:
The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day. What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue. And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes.... You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest. The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason. Why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument? I'm not saying it is or isn't just wondering why cruelty to another species isn't a good enough reason to stop doing something. I hope it's not the humans are carnivorous thing. Just curious here... If the fishermen shot the shark in the head before throwing it in the water, would that be animal cruelty also? If not, then the argument really has nothing at all to do with the actual product being sold. If so, well then I guess you are against any meat products being sold.
Are you talking about shooting the shark after it is de-finned? Animal cruelty to me is the totality of the practice of making shark fin soup. I have no problems with shark fin soup nor would I have any problems with people eating sharks. But pushing an animal towards extinction by using just a small part of it's body for no good reason is animal cruelty whether you let it drown or give it a quick death.
|
On October 27 2011 09:10 Body_Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 09:06 darkscream wrote:On October 26 2011 18:41 T.O.P. wrote:
It's an example of the majority infringing on the rights of the minority. The law unfairly targets people of Chinese descent by banning one of their cultural traditions. in canada where the native-born people dont eat shark The Inuit did and I think still do. It's more of a Greenland-Iceland thing though
He's talking about 'real' Canadians so certain portions of this glorious nation don't apply regardless of whether they were born here or are naturalized.
|
OH NO HOW WILL I GET MY FIN IN NOWWWWW?????
|
I'm not sure which type of shark fins are the ones people eat and what not but some shark breeds are very very close to being extinct. I'm definitely not okay with you hunting an animal to extinction just for a meal.
Given that sharks are an apex predator, we don't want them becoming extinct.
Sharks play a crucial role in maintaining their ecosystem, they should be protected.
Stick to eating easily bred animals - cows, chickens, etc.
|
The problem we have is that sharks are being harvested in an unsustainable manner that will lead to extinction. This basically means we have a negative externality on shark hunting. Instead of banning, simply tax the production or sale of shark fins until the economics result in less hunting for shark fins.
Doing so sidesteps any argument about infringing on cultural traditions (and I say this as someone ethnically Chinese who loves shark fin soup) and instead addresses the economic incentive for overfishing.
|
On October 27 2011 09:12 buickskylark wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 09:02 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 27 2011 08:57 buickskylark wrote:On October 27 2011 08:45 Body_Shield wrote:On October 27 2011 08:07 oldgregg wrote:On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote:
The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day. What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue. And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes.... You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest. The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason. Why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument? I'm not saying it is or isn't just wondering why cruelty to another species isn't a good enough reason to stop doing something. I hope it's not the humans are carnivorous thing. Just curious here... If the fishermen shot the shark in the head before throwing it in the water, would that be animal cruelty also? If not, then the argument really has nothing at all to do with the actual product being sold. If so, well then I guess you are against any meat products being sold. Are you talking about shooting the shark after it is de-finned? Animal cruelty to me is the totality of the practice of making shark fin soup. I have no problems with shark fin soup nor would I have any problems with people eating sharks. But pushing an animal towards extinction by using just a small part of it's body for no good reason is animal cruelty whether you let it drown or give it a quick death.
If you define artificial extinction as animal cruelty (technically the cruelest I guess), I would suggest you mention it earlier.
It can be directly related in this case, but using that term to describe artificial extinction is just kind of pointless when the term 'artificial extinction' exists....as it works much better to define itself than something else.
For example I don't describe Genocide just with the phrase horrible human rights violation, I'm pretty sure genocide works pretty well on it's own.
|
On October 27 2011 08:59 Enki wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 08:39 NoobSkills wrote:On October 27 2011 08:35 Enki wrote:On October 27 2011 08:26 NoobSkills wrote:On October 26 2011 18:12 Leeoku wrote:So my home town (mississauga) in ontario, canada just banned it recently. Today, the big move was when Toronto decided to ban it too. This prohibits sale/consumption of the product. Reason being, fishers just caught a shark, cut the fin and threw it back into the water (They may as well have kept the shark for other meat etc). Also there is the argument the shark population has been endangered because of it. The main problem with finning is throwing a finless shark back into the ocean. It seems more of an ethics case than overhunting. Still an issue but ethics seems to be the defining arguement. Also a key point, most people dont use shark meat , so 90%+ of the animal is wastedWhy shark fin? It is a traditional, cultural Chinese dish. I believe it is 2nd in rank in terms of delicacy next to abalone. High quality fin can go up to $1,100/kg. Obviously the asian community is very upset about this. Stores/restaurants have expressed rage at loss in sales and other Chinese people think it is hindering their food culture. Thoughts/opinions if the ban came to your town? City Councillors were treated to a standing ovation from a packed public gallery after they voted overwhelmingly for a bylaw banning the possession, sale and consumption of shark fin.
Restaurateurs were upset that the ban targets shark fin soup, a delicacy in Chinese restaurants, while conservationists hailed the decision as a way to protect sharks from possible extinction.
“This is amazing,” said Rob Stewart, who produced the documentary film Sharkwater and has been lobbying Toronto councillors for weeks to take action.
“My heart has all the warm butterflies inside,” a jubilant Stewart said after the vote. “I couldn’t feel better.”
Stewart said Toronto’s move, in addition to similar decisions by Mississauga, Oakville and Brantford, ups the pressure on the federal government to ban shark fin imports to Canada.
“I think it will set a precedent morally that Canada wants to ban shark fins and I think a federal ban will follow shortly after,” he said. “When your biggest city comes out and says 38-4 that they want a world where sharks have a future, I think the federal government will act, too.”
Council supported a ban despite a warning from city solicitor Anna Kinastowski that if the city were taken to court, there would be “challenges” in defending a ban.
Chinese restaurateurs, who had turned out in big numbers to oppose the ban, will look at their legal options, said Barbara Chiu, executive director of the Toronto Chinese Business Association
“Obviously, the businesses are very disappointed about the outcome and the whole process,” Chiu said. “The council didn’t listen to the solicitor.
“We are considering this (court action) but we don’t have any conclusion right now. It’s the businesses that are considering it. They will talk about it.”
Sonny Liu, manager of Kyu Shon Hong, a Dundas St. W. grocery store said he sells about 2 kilograms of shark fin a year. He couldn’t say his exact revenue from the fins, though one fin can sell for up to $1,100 a kilogram. As for the ban, he said, “I don’t mind, but I feel it’s unfair.”
Steven Chiu, owner of another store on Dundas, said the ban will cost him between $5,000 to $6,000.
He sells 50 or so annually, mostly during Chinese New Year, They vary in price according to size, the tail fin being the most expensive. “This is crazy,” he said about the ban.
The debate began Tuesday afternoon with Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker floating an inflatable shark in the council chamber, prompting a 10-minute recess to retrieve the shark.
Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday deplored the practice of removing fins and throwing the sharks back in the water to die, but he said it wasn’t council’s role to intervene.
“It’s not our job to police the world’s oceans,” Holyday said.
Councillors supporting the ban argued that it was no different than banning the sale of other items such as ivory from elephant tusks to protect the species.
About 150 protesters gathered had gathered outside Toronto city hall in a rally organized by local Chinese-Canadian business groups. Many wore signs saying “An unfair and irresponsible act.”
“If they are talking about species endangerment and the shark fishery, it should be addressed to the fed government instead of being discussed at a city council meeting,” said Chiu.
Asked if her group would oppose a national ban on shark fin products, Chiu said they would like to work with Ottawa on ways to combat illegal shark fishing but “we are not suggesting a national ban because the shark fishery is one of the major industries in Canada.
“We should not only ban one part of the shark, one part of the fish.”
The proposed bylaw would impose steep fines on anyone caught selling, consuming or possessing shark fin: $5,000 for a first offence, $25,000 for a second, $100,000 for a third or subsequent offence. Restaurant inspectors would check for shark fin during the regular course of their work.
Shark fin soup is a traditional Chinese delicacy often served at weddings. Proponents of a ban argue “finning”, the practice of severing fins from live sharks and tossing them back in the ocean to die, is inhumane. They also say certain shark species have been endangered by demand for fins.
Earlier this month, council’s licensing and standards committee voted 6-0 in favour of a ban. Its chair, Councillor Cesar Palacio (Ward 17, Davenport), said Mayor Rob Ford supported the decision.
Mississauga, Brantford and Oakville recently enacted bans, as did California. An NDP MP plans to propose a national ban, and Councillor Michelle Berardinetti (Ward 35 Scarborough Southwest), whose husband is a Liberal MPP, said she knows provincial politicians will seek an Ontario ban.
The licensing and standards committee voted against the advice of city licensing chief Bruce Robertson, who argued the city does not have the authority to ban shark fin. Top municipal lawyer George Rust-D’Eye, hired by the pro-ban Berardinetti, told the committee that Robertson was incorrect.
But Rust-D’Eye acknowledged that a lawsuit challenging a ban could result in a prolonged court battle that could end up in the Supreme Court.
The city would give restaurant owners until September 2012 to sell shark fin they had already purchased before the ban was enacted. http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1075837--council-bans-sale-consumption-of-shark-fin?bn=1 Even though it isn't humane to throw that shark back into the water just to suffer that isn't my biggest issue with the fin soup. It is that millions of people are STARVING in Asia yet a huge source of food is being throw back into the ocean when it should be going to the people. Shark meat is contaminated by high levels of mercury, it's not exactly fit for daily human consumption so I can't see that working. Sorry, but I eat Fish, Shark, Alligator almost every day. The reports are about people who eat fish that are high in mercury every day for every meal. That is overpowering on the system, but eating it in moderate amounts is fine it passes through your system and then your system is ready for another round. I must admit however I am not sure how the sharks off the coast of Asia are, perhaps they might be more mercury heavy, but in limit this meat could still be used. http://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm110591.htmThat's funny. I guess you know more about this then the FDA. For pregnant women and young children, they don't advise eating shark meat, ever. Methylmercury is removed from your body naturally yes, but its a very long process. http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/product-specificinformation/seafood/foodbornepathogenscontaminants/methylmercury/ucm115644.htmTheres a chart for Methylmercury levels in commercial fish and shellfish. Guess which has some of the highest mercury levels? Heres another chart, with pictures this time: http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/Whatfish_graphic.pdfEating as much fish as you do, I guess are lucky that you haven't had mercury poisoning.
It isn't like I eat old shark (live longer = more mercury) every day of my life. I have not had mercury poisoning though a couple of my buddies were on a fishing trip in Cali and were eating fish for every meal and they all had to go the the hospital after 4 days. Yes the children shouldn't eat the meat, but every time an adult eats shark it leaves more beef, chicken, goat, or whatever else there is left for them. It does take a bit to pass, but when substituted in it adds a food source that wasn't there before. Also they take the fins off ALL sharks, and the young ones are the ones with not only the more tender meat, but less mercury.
|
On October 27 2011 09:21 Body_Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 09:12 buickskylark wrote:On October 27 2011 09:02 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 27 2011 08:57 buickskylark wrote:On October 27 2011 08:45 Body_Shield wrote:On October 27 2011 08:07 oldgregg wrote:On October 27 2011 08:03 Body_Shield wrote:
The point of animal cruelty is pretty much moot in this situation. When you get down to brass tacks, it's all about if they keep heading in this direction, there will be no more sharks to fin, therefore no soup.
You can leave animal cruelty and wasteful practice completely out of the argument, because the actual outcome is the worst outcome. Using animal cruelty paints you in a 'hippy' kind of light to 'Conservative' type people, and if you've noticed, they tend to ignore and dismiss hippies.
This is the unfortunately reality. Strangely I find it's similar to the whole Global Warming/Environmental Protection cause, but that's for another day. What? I think the animal cruelty aspect of it is a HUGE issue. And I don't care if some asshole thinks that makes me a hippie. I judge conservatives as ignorant a-holes too, .. so it goes.... You can use it in the argument, but in and of itself is not a complete reason to ban the entire product/harvest. The fact that there will be none left....forever... is the one and only reason. Why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument? I'm not saying it is or isn't just wondering why cruelty to another species isn't a good enough reason to stop doing something. I hope it's not the humans are carnivorous thing. Just curious here... If the fishermen shot the shark in the head before throwing it in the water, would that be animal cruelty also? If not, then the argument really has nothing at all to do with the actual product being sold. If so, well then I guess you are against any meat products being sold. Are you talking about shooting the shark after it is de-finned? Animal cruelty to me is the totality of the practice of making shark fin soup. I have no problems with shark fin soup nor would I have any problems with people eating sharks. But pushing an animal towards extinction by using just a small part of it's body for no good reason is animal cruelty whether you let it drown or give it a quick death. If you define artificial extinction as animal cruelty (technically the cruelest I guess), I would suggest you mention it earlier. It can be directly related in this case, but using that term to describe artificial extinction is just kind of pointless when the term 'artificial extinction' exists....as it works much better to define itself than something else. For example I don't describe Genocide just with the phrase horrible human rights violation, I'm pretty sure genocide works pretty well on it's own.
It's kind of hard to make separate arguments between shark fin soup/cruelty/wastefulness and shark extinction when they're completely related. Like I asked before, why wouldn't animal cruelty be a valid argument?
|
On October 27 2011 09:01 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 20:57 T.O.P. wrote:On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:But Chinese will defend anything China even if they actually disagree, apparently. Don't give me this fake loyalty. The more I learn about China, the less I respect it. Once again, an example of ignorance. Good Cantonese soup cost a lot of money to make. Even the soup my dad makes regularly costs $50-100 a pot. Also, your comment makes no sense. He said no soup is worth more than 5 dollar. You call that ignorance. It's his fucking opinion. Your argument just proves his point. You are both wrong and ignorant as well as unable to understand the reasoning of others or express your own opinion using reasoning. He's ignorant because he has never even tasted the soup before. Opinions can be ignorant. On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:
Knowing the prize would spoil the taste when eating it. Especially when you realize the context is in a third world country. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. On October 26 2011 20:37 Suisen wrote:
I hear the noises of Han Chinese bring good luck as a good luck charm. And the good news is, there's a Han Chinese for every one of us. Let's harvest them as a Chinese doesn't really need a nose. Immoral? Nooo, don't infringe on culture. If that's your culture, then cool. Hunting Han chinese seems much more dangerous than hunting sharks though. Since we're freely expressing our opinions on the subject, I think China is a backwards ass country trying to hang on to too much archaic tradition while attempting to modernize its economy within a political framework that doesn't work. There's a huge social revolution coming in that country, and I can't wait for it to happen. Too many human beings are being abused and exploited, and they need to do something about it. While I'd love to write out a multi paged critique of the current Chinese government, I'll keep this about shark fin soup in Canada. Frankly, if you're calling people ignorant for not having tried the soup or knowing about it, then you're missing the point. This thread isn't about culinary criticism or how much a dish costs, it's about Canada (finally) being willing to critique another culture and decide what we want in our country and what we do not. Shark fin soup should be banned outright in Canada (and any other civilized country for that matter). Period. This isn't a new issue. I'm amazed by how much mileage Gordan Ramsey's documentary has given it, but people have been talking about this for 20+ years. The harvesting methods employed to support the demand for what amounts to little more than a status symbol are barbaric and unsustainable. When you say things like we're ignorant for stepping on Chinese cultural traditions, it really shows me where you're at. China consumes a number of different items from endangered species as aphrodisiacs and status symbols. Guess what? A culture that values status and stupidity above responsible and sustainable environmental policy should be critiqued and told no. This is Canada, we're allowed to form policy around what we feel is most inclusive, not what ignorant and environmentally unaware Chinese people on the other side of the globe have done for the past 2000 years and want to continue for no other reason than tradition. When you have a billion people in your country who want to consume tiger penis or rhinoceros horn because they stupidly believe it to be an aphrodisiac while the environment suffers then its time to sober up. You said in a previous post that Chinese think westerners are ignorant. That's nice, except that Canada has a very good human rights record, is one of the world leaders in alternative energy research, and over the past several hundred years has forged a very nice stable inclusive society that people want to live in. When Chinese people (who live in a country with a very poor human rights record, a country that cuts corners to produce unsafe and hazardous products, a country with little to no long term plans for sustainable or green energy, a country that only 25 years ago ran over protesting students with tanks, and a country that would rather keep their embarrassing screw ups secret rather than fixing the underlying problem) tell us we're ignorant for being critical of a negative environmentally irresponsible aspect of their culture -- even after how committed we've shown ourselves to be about respecting other cultures, we can rightfully ignore and laugh at them. I support the ban 100%, I wish our country as a whole would ban it, I hope other countries follow suit, and if certain Chinese people don't understand why it's important that certain nations show leadership and take a stance on this important issue, then we don't need them in our country.
Agreed- 100%
This is not about "cruelty" because it's nothing worse that we already do to other animals. But it's about an unsustainable harvesting that will have a huge impact on the eco-system of the ocean and the available species for us to continue harvesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
