Sharkfin Soup in Calgary is Banned!

[rabbit]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

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."

I think targeting sharks soley for their fins needs to be addressed and outlawed because its wasteful and cruel. My point is that you can outlaw finning without outlawing shark fin soup just like I think you can save bluefin tunas without banning the sale of every type of tuna.

I didn't bring up by-catch to point out how it is wasteful and cruel, which it is. Instead, I brought up by-catch because some sources estimate that half of the sharks die because they are caught as by-catch. My point was that even with a shark fin soup ban, you're not necessarily going to save the sharks if you don't also address the issue of all those sharks that die as by-catch and over-fishing them for their meat

I'm saying if the real goal is to save sharks, then you need a comprehensive fishing management system in place that bans finning, addresses all those sharks getting killed as by-catch, prevents over-fishing of endangered species, establishes habitat protection, etc.. A feel-good law against shark fin soup won't do that if it doesn't address those other factors as long as it singles out shark fin soup as the only reason for the decline of sharks.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by rabbit

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.

Making a claim that the number is much less based on absolutely nothing but a bias against activists is not a way to get anyone on your side. The number could actually be higher than what is claimed by activists. It could be lower. It could be right on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...k-finning.html



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.

Making a claim that the number is much less based on absolutely nothing but a bias against activists is not a way to get anyone on your side. The number could actually be higher than what is claimed by activists. It could be lower. It could be right on.

As for activists misusing the definition of finned sharks to include non-finned, do you actually have any evidence of this? A study made? Or are you basing this off of a Gordon Ramsey episode too? It's still possible tens of millions of sharks are killed from finning, while others are killed for different reasons and their fins taken. One doesn't preclude the other.

[rabbit]

Originally Posted by Jake

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.

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.

Well, I always thought the smooth dogfish would be a pretty candidate for something that could be done sustainably if you had quotas that were determined by the best scientific data.

Its a fast growing shark, where the males reach reproductive maturity in two years. (If you had a minimum size catch rule, you would avoid catching and killing juvenile sharks before they reached reproductive maturity.) And, the meat itself have decent market value so you're not catching and killing the sharks just for the fins.

When you outlaw shark fins where the only outlet is the black market, then there's no financial incentives for fishermen to harvest them in legal, best practices where they're fishing for non-endangered, mature sharks.

The fishery for the smooth dog fish is in the US, so its in a country with the resources to perform regular stock assessments. I would say that the US is probably one of the best, if not the best, countries in terms of shark fishery management. And, I would point to the US as an example where fishery management works when done correctly. Major shark declines happened before 1994, and shark populations, with a few notable exceptions, have increased since then.

The key will be that governments and regulators will have to listen to their scientists to establish the quotas as to how many sharks could be harvested without endangering the sharks. Too often, when the scientists come up with a quota that will be sustainable, the agencies and governments will overrule those scientists with a much higher number. For example, scientists had warned that only X tons of blue tuna could be caught each year but six times that amount was allowed and yet it was still called sustainable.

I think its important that we allow our fishery scientists to determine what, if any restrictions, we place on shark fishing instead of arguing that doing that work is simply too hard so we should ban it even if there's no scientific merit to that argument.

[normtwofinger]

It took you 21 days to think up that reply?

[puckluck2]

Ontario supreme court rejects shark fin ban in Toronto.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/12/01...n-ban-alderman

Maybe Bertuzzied and his family can still enjoy more $500 plates of shark fin while at the same time supporting the ban.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Iginla

Ontario supreme court rejects shark fin ban in Toronto.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/12/01...n-ban-alderman

Maybe Bertuzzied and his family can still enjoy more $500 plates of shark fin while at the same time supporting the ban.

No thanx. that was our last time for shark fin in Calgary. Besides i don't think any other bowl could top what we had that nite.

[TorqueDog]

If they sold you the broth without the sharkfin in it, it'd taste just as good, that's what really blows me away - the sharkfin doesn't add anything in terms of taste and yet people will pay obscene sums of money for it.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If they sold you the broth without the sharkfin in it, it'd taste just as good, that's what really blows me away - the sharkfin doesn't add anything in terms of taste and yet people will pay obscene sums of money for it.

It's the texture.

[LGA]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

It's the texture.

It doesn't really have texture either. It's just kind of there.

[Wormius]

What is needed is for someone to unearth a quote from Chairman Mao that says he never liked shark's fin soup and problem solved.

The amount of respect he still somehow garners even in death is mind boggling. I once told my brother-in-law he looked like Mao, and he took it as a compliment and thanked me.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by LGA

It doesn't really have texture either. It's just kind of there.

These are the same cultures that have bubble tea. For some reason they like gross squishy stuff in their liquids...

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Wormius

What is needed is for someone to unearth a quote from Chairman Mao that says he never liked shark's fin soup and problem solved.

The amount of respect he still somehow garners even in death is mind boggling. I once told my brother-in-law he looked like Mao, and he took it as a compliment and thanked me.

I'm pretty sure most the sharkfin served in the world is not in communist china.

Brainwashing takes a while to deprogram.

[peter12]

Oh man, lots of Internet racists here. Everybody should look at rabbit's responses, they were actually good.

[rabbit]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I'm pretty sure most the sharkfin served in the world is not in communist china.

One of the reasons I'm critical of a shark fin soup ban in Canada or in the US, both minor consumers of shark fins, is that such a ban here won't really do anything to save any more sharks.

If most of the shark fin soup in the world was being consumed in America and Canada by Asian immigrants, then such a shark fin soup ban here would be brutally crude but effective nonetheless in saving some sharks.

However, the three biggest consumers, by a wide margin, of shark fins are in countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China. If there's no similar ban in those countries, then there's no decrease in worldwide consumption because any decrease here will be nullified with increased consumption from those three countries.

Shark fins has always been popular in those three Asian countries, but the problem is that a growing middle class in China can now afford to indulge in shark fin soup when not so long ago China was a very poor country where its citizens couldn't afford such luxuries.

The problem really is that a growing Chinese middle class is not just consuming more shark fin soups, but also driving more cars, eating more red meat, generating more trash, etc.. In other words, they're consuming more and more like Americans, with the exception of the shark fin soup which is why there's so much controversy surrounding shark fin soup.

(Not to be too didatic, but I don't know if we should really call China communist even though the Communist Party of China runs China. Its not like we'd call the US a Christian Theocracy even when George W. Bush was their President. )

[rabbit]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If they sold you the broth without the sharkfin in it, it'd taste just as good, that's what really blows me away - the sharkfin doesn't add anything in terms of taste and yet people will pay obscene sums of money for it.

Food is more than just taste. Its all about how taste, texture, smell, how it looks, etc. combines together to give you something truly delicious.

You could say the same thing about fried chicken if you removed that crispy skin. Or, say the same thing about an apple if you removed that crunchy bite. If you put your food in a blender, it'd have the same taste but it wouldn't be as craveable with that loss of balance of different textures.

These are the same cultures that have bubble tea. For some reason they like gross squishy stuff in their liquids...

There's an appreciation for a greater range of textures in Chinese cooking than Western cooking, beyond the crispy/crunchy texture and unctuous mouth feel of fat.

The Chinese love and appreciate tasteless foods like jellyfish, pig's ear, sea cucumber, tofu, bird's nest, wood ear in hot and sour soup, etc... for their textures. Here's a good intro into the different types of textures to pay attention the next time anybody tries Chinese food:

http://kake.dreamwidth.org/128870.html

[Ducay]

This might be going out on a huge limb, but you wouldn't happen to be Chinese would you Rabbit.......


You can't argue that we shouldn't have a ban because other larger consumers don't have one yet. If that were the case, we'd never have any change effected in our society. Everything has to start somewhere, and the sooner we stop the barbaric practices being used in this industry, the better.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by rabbit

Food is more than just taste. Its all about how taste, texture, smell, how it looks, etc. combines together to give you something truly delicious.

So what, exactly, does shark fin add to a dish to make it feel, smell or look better that can't be replicated with another ingredient?

[NSFL]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

So what, exactly, does shark fin add to a dish to make it feel, smell or look better that can't be replicated with another ingredient?

I find the texture of shark fin very distinctive and kinda disgusting. Think strips of plastic. But that might just be me. I don't think that texture's easily replicated with anything edible.

[chemgear]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-business.html

Chinese stakeholders fight Calgary shark fin ban

[JazzyFlame]

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...-business.html

Chinese stakeholders fight Calgary shark fin ban

Some cultures love tiger paws while other enjoy gorilla hands. None of this is right.

keep the ban.