David Strike wrote:

> > > The fishermen are, it seems to me, not at fault!  They're simply
trying
> to make a living by catering to supply
> > > and demand.
>
> > Funny, drug dealers say the same thing about their business.
>
> I wasn't aware that shark's fin soup was a prohibited substance?

Depends on where you are, I suppose.  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.

> 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.

> 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 - 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.

> I'm certain that the same argument could be made for those who work for a
> pittance to grow, say, Coca leaves.  I would find it equally difficult to
> condemn them - or put the blame for the crimiinal trade in drugs on their
> shoulders! :-)

Sharks are edible.  If they, and their families are so hungry, why are they
sinking the bodies instead of eating them?  Why aren't they illegally
harveting other fish, you know, ones that don't draw very high prices?
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.

Lee