Lee wrote:
>Depends on where you are, I suppose.
You bet! I can't think of a single Asian country where shark fins are
banned. You are dealing with cultural issues which are vastly different from
the drug issue. None of the societal ills usually associated with drugs
(crime, prostitution etc.) result from the shark fin trade. There is no
moral or physical deterioration in society that you could possibly link with
the harvesting of or trading in shark fins. And that is why it is so
difficult to legislate against.
>Drugs are not universally prohibited
>either. The point was, both shark finners and drug dealers are breaking
the
>law. The fact that they are meeting demand neither lessens the violation
>nor makes them any less at fault.
I'm with Strike here. I loathe the practice of shark finning as much as
anyone here, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that, on the supply
side, we are squeezing the wrong people. In my thousands of travel days here
in Asia, I have seen more human misery than anyone should have to see, let
alone experience. I can assure you that if I had to choose between finning
and letting my children go hungry, I would fin every shark I could lay my
hands on. If you wouldn't, then you are either a better man than I, or in
denial, or have never had children.
And that is reality here, whether the educated world likes it or not. The
only thing that will make this go away is a sustained effort to educate -
village by village - about the value of an intact ecosystem to the
community. The Philippines is making inroads on that, especially where
whalesharks are concerned.
> Strangely enough, while there are attempts to halt shark-finning and
>outlaw the
> practice, the trade in them is still perfectly legal - and flourishing!
>Depends on where you are for sure.
The US has come some way with the legislation against shark finning (and I
presume that's what you are referring to). But there are still holes in the
moral armor of the US on similarly cruel practices, like long-line fishing
for example. Read "Hungry Ocean" about the swordfish trade in New England.
Strike wrote:
> In that regard, my comments referred to an occupational group who -
lacking
> access to, say, the long-line technology that US business interests are
> using to pillage the fishing grounds of the South Pacific
Bingo!
> - are obliged to
> make a subsistence-level living where traditional fishing stocks have
>become
> depleted, doing what their forefathers have done for centuries. The money
> that they make from the practice goes to feed their families.
Bingo!
>Sharks are edible. If they, and their families are so hungry, why are they
>sinking the bodies instead of eating them?
Firstly, nobody is "sinking" the bodies. Sharks don't have a swim bladder.
If they don't swim, they sink. Without fins, they can't swim. So they sink.
Plenty of pictures out thereon the Web of that.
> Why aren't they illegally
>harveting other fish, you know, ones that don't draw very high prices?
In many places, such as the Philippines and southern India, there isn't much
left. And shark meat is considered abhorrent to many Asians, the way dog
meat is to most of us here.
>Sorry, but those that intentionally chose to break the law are wrong, more
>wrong, in fact, than those that legally purchase their illegally obtained
>product.
Firstly, I can't agree that there is a difference in criminality between
those who provide the illegal product and those who partake of it. In fact,
there are several countries that have laid down the exact opposite in their
laws. Don't know if the US is among them but I'd be surprised if it weren't.
Secondly, to paraphrase Strike, I think it behooves anyone making that kind
of statement to first walk a mile in the other side's shoes. Imagine
yourself looking into the eyes of your hungry child and telling him that
Daddy can't provide any food (or shoes, or shelter) today, because someone
10,000 miles away decided that what Daddy does is bad.
Bjorn
|
