Another false/exaggerated claims Ramsay made was how he claimed in Costa Rica the fishermen freaked out when he dived off the boat to swim along marlin only to discover a bag of illegal shark fins underwater, tied to the bottom of the boat that the fishermen were trying to hide from him.
But, again, there's no footage of this.
Instead, the fishermen are pretty open about showing him the fins and the sharks they've caught when Ramsay notices a large shark fin that doesn't match the sharks the fishermen have caught. And, the fishermen openly admit it cause they don't see it as a big deal because they cut up that shark for bait.
For a documentary that was supposed to show how widespread finning was, it unwittingly made the opposite point.
In Taiwan, we see fins and sharks coming onto shore together. Ramsay tries to make a big point how the number of fins don't match the number of sharks but duh... sharks have multiple fins.
In Costa Rica, for a boat that was out on sea for an entire month, Ramsay can only show one shark that was finned and even then it wasn't that wasteful cause the fisherman used the rest of the shark for bait.
Finning is terrible and wasteful and should be stopped, but its not as widespread as shark activists portray it to be. Its like PETA releasing a video of the abuses of 1 slaughterhouse, and then claiming that is what every slaughter house does.
The shark activists will never bring up the truth that the fins being sold have been decreasing for a number of years, and new laws and regulations that countries like Taiwan and Costa Rica have passed about landing sharks and fins together are playing a role in that decrease. It shows you can decrease the fins getting sold without necessarily implementing a total ban on shark fin soup.
The footage of finning Ramsay showed is years old and increasingly looks outdated because he couldn't find any new footage of sharks getting finned with the exception of that 1 fin in Costa Rica. If finning is so widespread, then shouldn't we expected to have seen more than a single case of finning?
That old finning footage was shocking, but things change, sometimes for the better. Look at the way Hudson Valley Farm used to treat its ducks, practices that the EU specifically had called out in its criticism of foie gras production. But, Hudson Valley Farm later improved its husbandry where now foie gras supporters point to Hudson Valley Farm as a shining light for foie gras production. Just because sharks were once commonly finned doesn't necessarily mean its still true today, especially as more and more countries pass laws and regulations that ban finning.
Ramsay makes a big deal how 100 million sharks are killed every year for their fins, but again, that's a big lie. That 100 million number has been made up because its big and easy to remember. The best estimates were 38 million fins being sold, with no data how many of those were finned, and those numbers have only decreased since then.
Finning is terrible and wasteful, but its not as widespread as shark activists portray it to be.
Really? I honestly don't know much about this, but since shark finning is almost completely unregulated and usually done out on the middle of the sea, couldn't it just as easily be even more widespread than activists portray?
A quick Google search directs me to stopsharkfinning.com, which reports tens of millions of sharks killed annually, which seems to fall in line with the NatGeo article that states 38M. That number itself could be smaller, too, but couldn't it also be bigger? Where do you get the info that it's actually less than normally portrayed?
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Because even the gods of the internet don't want anyone to read that.
But, before you completely ban something, shouldn't you know the actual facts about the topic when its going to destroy a culinary tradition and hurt businesses and fishermen.
Shouldn't you know the actual number or best estimate of sharks getting killed or the number of finned sharks?
I say so because if you know that information, then you can craft legislation that would address shark finning without completely banning shark fin soup.
And, if you actually care about sharks, then you need to know such facts before you can craft legislation that would save sharks. Half of the sharks killed are killed as the result of by-catch, which a shark fin ban doesn't address.
Its no wonder Chinese people feel they're being singled out when such legislation won't address serious issues like by-catch which ends up killing about half of the sharks that get killed by fishermen every year.
Such bans are a easy, feel-good way for legislators to build up their enviornmental cred by banning something only a minority group eats while ignoring bigger enviornmental problems that the majority of the voters are responsible for. Finning is wasteful, but so is by-catch where the fishermen dump all these dead fish because it wasn't the fish they were targeting for.
But, before you completely ban something, shouldn't you know the actual facts about the topic when its going to destroy a culinary tradition and hurt businesses. Shouldn't you know the actual number or best estimate of sharks getting killed or the number of those that are getting finned? I say so because if you know that information, then you can craft legislation that would address shark finning without completely banning shark fin soup. And, if you actually care about sharks, then you need to know such facts before you can craft legislation that would save sharks. Half of the sharks killed are killed as by-catch, which a shark fin ban doesn't address. Its no wonder Chinese people feel they're being singled out when such legislation won't address serious issues like by-catch. Such bans are a easy, feel-good way for legislators to build up their enviornmental cred by banning something only a minority group eats while ignoring bigger enviornmental problems that the majority of the voters are responsible for.
How about we ban the barbaric and medieval practise while we do the investigation. If it turns out there is some way of farming sharks in order to satisfy this absurd tradition then we can change the law.
But, before you completely ban something, shouldn't you know the actual facts about the topic when its going to destroy a culinary tradition and hurt businesses. Shouldn't you know the actual number or best estimate of sharks getting killed or the number of those that are getting finned? I say so because if you know that information, then you can craft legislation that would address shark finning without completely banning shark fin soup. And, if you actually care about sharks, then you need to know such facts before you can craft legislation that would save sharks. Half of the sharks killed are killed as by-catch, which a shark fin ban doesn't address. Its no wonder Chinese people feel they're being singled out when such legislation won't address serious issues like by-catch. Such bans are a easy, feel-good way for legislators to build up their enviornmental cred by banning something only a minority group eats while ignoring bigger enviornmental problems that the majority of the voters are responsible for. Finning is wasteful, but so is by-catch where the fishermen dump all these dead fish because it wasn't the fish they were targeting for.
I agree that by-catch is something that definitely needs to be addressed, too, but, seemingly, so does targeting sharks solely for their fins. There is no rule saying one needs to be addressed before the other and hopefully they're both addressed. Based on the little I do know about shark finning, though, it doesn't appear one of these issues is serious while the other isn't, and that reads like more of a rhetorical attempt to minimize the importance of it than anything else. That, and this post feels like an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. "This is bad, but so is this other thing (even more so), and the majority of people aren't doing anything about that, so the ban and hatred of this bad thing by those people isn't credible."
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
A lot of people who are really upset about shark finning are upset because they think they should be upset. I don't buy Gordon Ramsay's outrage for a second as legitimate and from the heart. The waste, and the likelihood that the species will go extinct - that is an issue of REAL importance.
Ding, ding, ding.
A year before Ramsay filmed Shark Bait, he went on a recreational shark fishing trip to kill two sharks for fun where it took 10 minutes for the sharks to suffocate...
And, even after Shark Bait aired, Ramsay continued to serve endangered animals at his restaurants like atlantic halibut, european eel, bluefin tuna, etc...
If Ramsay really wanted to save the environment, it seemed like he could do a lot more to shine attention on the endangered animals his restaurants and his audiences were eating rather than a Chinese delicacy that he or his followers weren't going to ever touch in the first place.
To me, the endangered status of the bluefin tuna illustrates to me why a complete and total ban on shark fin soup is wrong on a couple of levels.
A complete ban is too broad where we're acting as if every shark is endangered, when 20-33% shark species, depending on your sources, are endangered. We would never pass a law to completely ban the sale of all the different types of tuna just because the bluefin tuna is endangered which is akin to what a shark fin ban does.
Instead of passing a complete ban on shark fin soup, why aren't we banning the sale or importation of finned sharks and endangered sharks? In other words, if Chinese people wanted to eat shark fin soup that came from healthy populations of sharks that were caught in a sustainable, environmentally friendly manner, then what's wrong with that?
To me, this ban is a slippery slope and potentially precedent setting. Today, its shark fins but what's next?
Shark activists will say sharks need special protection because they are special case as apex predators and the importance that plays in the ecology. But all the different types of tuna, and not just the endangered bluefin tuna, are apex predators. And, swordfish are apex predators too. Are we going to be soon banning the sale of tuna and swordfish since they're apex predators too and just as important to the marine ecology?
Or, maybe, they'll ban the slaughter or sale of horse meat in Canada just like its been banned in the US?
If we're going to get the ball rolling and ban food because of its enviornmental impact, then don't we need to worry, at some point, are they going to ban cow meat? Big picture enviornmental level, our consumption of meat causes a lot more damage to the environment than Chinese people eating shark fins. The UN has called livestock sector one of the top three biggest enviornmental problems in the world.
Cows aren't endangered, but that doesn't mean they're not a enviornmental problem- since cows are so popular and plentiful and cheap and we raise so many cows on farms to meet that demand, those cows place a lot of pressure on the environment. In the US, more than 25% of those endangered species became endangered because of cattle grazing.
To me, this ban is a slippery slope and potentially precedent setting....Are we going to be soon banning the sale of tuna and swordfish since they're apex predators too and just as important to the marine ecology? At some point, are they going to ban cow meat?
wha? how did you go from talking about apex predators to cows? 8 posts so far and all about passionately defending the shark fin trade. you don't happen to work in some industry related to the soup do you?
anyways, whether Ramsay is genuine or not, I don't really care. and humans are always going to kill and eat animals. what most people don't want to see anymore are healthy sharks getting their fins sawed off and then thrown back into the ocean. cruelty and waste, that's what's wrong with this and any similar practice.
if they can get the fins off sharks in a humane manner, and use the rest of the body for something, then fine. I'm sure some are out there doing it that way, but the ones that aren't need to stop.
If Chinese people want to eat shark fin soup that came from healthy populations of sharks that were caught in a sustainable, environmentally friendly manner, then what's wrong with that?
One problem (of many) with that is that shark finning primarily occurs in nations that lack the resources to perform regular stock assessments, and are therefore unable to determine which shark species have "healthy" populations.
Another is that it is very difficult and expensive to evaluate populations of pelagic sharks as they cross borders and are usually in international waters. Little is known about pelagic sharks life cycle, which is critical information for fisheries managers.
There is plenty of data out there from independent researchers showing coastal shark populations (of all species) have been devastated in finning hotspots. Unfortunately governments cannot rely on this data to manage fisheries, as it comes in unpredictably and infrequently.
The terms "sustainable" and "environmentally friendly" get tossed around way too easily. Few people actually stop and think about the extensive amount of data and analysis needed to justify them. More often than not, it is just a marketing strategy and there is no justification behind it at all.
Why don't they kill the effing shark before the finning? Why throw them back in the ocean alive?
That would take more time. They have a bunch of sharks on the line. They pull in the line and remove each shark from it's hook. The fins are cut off as quickly as possible and the remainder of the animal is thrown back in. Gordon Ramsey put out a pretty solid documentary that shows the whole process from ocean to plate.
It's basically an industry based around cruel efficiency. The fins, which are light weight and expensive are kept, while the rest of the animal is casually discarded. It would take more hull space, and, therefore, more trips to use the whole animal.
Really? I honestly don't know much about this, but since shark finning is almost completely unregulated and usually done out on the middle of the sea, couldn't it just as easily be even more widespread than activists portray?
Activists will almost always go with the larger number because it grabs bigger headlines and thereby bring more attention to the issue they're trying to awareness of.
Gordon Ramsay also made that claim about how shark finning is completely unregulated, but I thought his own footage proved the opposite because it showed that there are laws/rules against finning that are being effectively enforced.
More and more countries continue to pass legislation that prohibit fining, and yet fining is completely unregulated? In Taiwan and Costa Rica, we only saw one finned shark with the rest of the fins coming to shore with rest of the sharks.
If shark activist want to argue that sharks will only be saved by banning shark fin soup, but shark populations, with notable exceptions like the hammerhead and great white, in the US have increased since the ban against fining in 1994 even without any ban on shark fin soup.
The EU, the largest exporter of fins to Asia, has also banned shark fining. But, sharks in North Atlantic waters in the EU region continued to decline mostly because of overfishing for sharks for their meat and by-catch, things which a shark fin soup ban doesn't address.
A quick Google search directs me to stopsharkfinning.com, which reports tens of millions of sharks killed annually, which seems to fall in line with the NatGeo article that states 38M. That number itself could be smaller, too, but couldn't it also be bigger? Where do you get the info that it's actually less than normally portrayed?
I will give credit to stopsharkfinning for not using the 100M figure as other shark activists do, but I have a problem when it also states that those tens of millions get killed because of fining. In other words, they're saying that every fin was from a live shark that got brutally fiinned at sea, and then discarding the still live shark into the water. But, the Ramsay footage showed all those sharks that were not finned so you can't claim that every fin comes from a finned shark.
Part of the problem is that the shark activists have mis-used the accepted definition of fining to include all these non-finned sharks in order to inflate the number of sharks they can claim were finned.
