Two weeks ago, I wrote about the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision to throw out penalties against a fishing vessel carrying 64,695 pounds of shark fins in U.S. waters. Shipping a cargo full of shark fins without sharks is illegal in the United States, but the King Diamond II sailed through a loophole that allowed it to carry fins it had gathered from other ships.
Something good has come out of this: The decision has galvanized pressure to end the brutal practice of shark finning, which kills tens of millions of sharks annually, including many species already threatened by extinction.
Late on Wednesday, Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) introduced the Shark Conservation Act of 2008, which will not only require all sharks to be landed with their fins, but also require any other sharks imported into the United States to have the same protections. It's an intermediate step in ensuring protection for sharks worldwide, but it's a vital step all the same.
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 4:11 pm
11 Apr 2008
So, is it time yet for me to call my Congressman, Charlie Rangel?
Even if the bill eventually passes, it still looks puny, given that the worldwide threat to sharks, outside American waters, is so huge.
It is time to implement Jon Rynn's idea: that one of the principal missions of the US Navy should be regulating fisheries around the world.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Russ Posted 6:07 pm
11 Apr 2008
Just to give this morning's examples:
-New stadiums, in order to include more sky-boxes.
-More international flights, when I doubt more than one in a hundred of these "travellers" really needs to cross the ocean.
-The massacre of sharks for the oh-so-delectable shark fin soup.
-And of course every energy discussion anchored in the religious dogma that "capacity" must be not only sustained but expanded, because after all everyone needs more energy, bigger noisier electronics, bigger hotter swimming pools, ever bigger residential and commercial structures which must be heated to 75 degrees in winter and cooled to 65 in summer, and of course fountains and artificial indoor ski slopes in the desert, these last only slightly more sybaritic and worthless than the energy intensive toys everyone demands.
All of these are manifestations of a militant, belligerent, violent GREED for luxury, for brainless pleasure, for self-indulgence, the endless cycle of tickling and then slaking one's material lusts and gutter sense of entitlement.
Nothing can be done with this, I suppose. All that can be done is to try to build some sort of Noah's ark, to try to preserve and defend whatever can be preserved and defended until and through the inevitable civilizational collapse guaranteed by global warming, peak oil, and man's own depravity in refusing to change his ways.
Permalink
suzannah Posted 11:13 pm
11 Apr 2008
Russ, don't despair. The United States has a chance here to be a real leader for sharks. And I do believe people will come around on luxuries like shark fin soup and maybe even SUVs. It make take a serious economic downturn, too, but hey! Good news for environmentalists. We may get one of those.
Oceana: Protecting the world's oceans.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:13 am
12 Apr 2008
I am already planning to call Congressman Rangel, regarding legislation to restrict trafficking in the body parts (gall bladders being the part of choice, for use in traditional Chinese medicine) of bears. And now, I can add this shark-protection bill to the same call.
Conveniently they have a similar theme: American wild animals are being targeted, because one or another part of them is highly desirable in one or another East Asian market.
I hope you are right about shark-fin soup falling soon out of fashion. Meanwhile, that is not much consolation to the sharks who are today getting caught and relieved of their fins.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 6:16 am
13 Apr 2008
There may be some minor loophole in the legal language of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 or some NMFS 2002 regulations that allowed some foreign boats "not under US jurisdiction" to trans-ship shark fins - but the main point is that the practice by US fishermen in the EEZ is extremely limited and restricted to a very few fish pirates.
So I think this is "much ado about nothing." You all act like it is the end of civilization but thanks to conservation efforts, the sharks are coming back nicely. The notable exceptions are (a) long-line fishing and (b) menhaden "pogie" ships. I don't think you've done your research here, and question your motives, beyond simply cleaning up some minor and slightly errant legalese that was not intended in the first place.
-sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
suzannah Posted 8:22 am
13 Apr 2008
Meanwhile, ships like the King Diamond II could gallivant through U.S. waters carrying all the fins they wanted as long as they hadn't actually sliced and diced the sharks themselves.
What really needs to happen is NMFS must require ships to land sharks with fins attached. Not in some cooked-up ratio. In the interim, we have to chip away at legislation that allows ships like the King Diamond to operate. It's not a very glamorous way to advocate for the oceans, but unfortunately, this is the way it gets done. And yes, Sam, you're right that the U.S. is not a leader in shark finning. But at the very least we can be a leader in shark protection.
Oceana: Protecting the world's oceans.
Permalink