The brutal practice of shark finning got a boost this week as the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a Hong Kong company should not have lost the proceeds from 64,695 pounds of shark fins seized by the Coast Guard in 2002.
Let me repeat that figure: 64,695 pounds of shark fins alone were on that boat. That's the weight of more than eleven Cadillac Escalades. Or eight female African elephants. Or 470 Oxford dictionaries.
Without knowing what species of sharks were on the boat (the King Diamond II) or the size of the sharks, it's hard to know how many sharks were killed. Consider this, however: A shark fin comprises just 1 to 5 percent of the animal's body weight. After the fins are sliced off, the sharks are thrown overboard to die.
Shark finning is illegal in the United States, but a loophole allowed the King Diamond II to carry shark fins it had collected from other fishing ships. A loophole big enough to drive a bevy of Escalades through? Time to close that one up.
Obama unveils ocean protection plan
13 badass greens
Comments View as Flat
Sam Wells Posted 8:31 am
20 Mar 2008
Chark!
Fishermen in the US don't fin sharks anymore, as a general rule. It used to be that the long-line and bandit boats would be covered in drying shark fins but that was decades ago. It is legal to catch a few sharks with the right permits but they must be whole, not just the fins. All commercial boats must notify when they are headed into port so they can be inspected, and the recreational regulations are one shark per day per boat (except the Atlantic Sharpnose, etc.). These rules combined with the reduction of trawling has allowed the sharks in US waters to start recovering very well.
The menhaden trawlers are a different story, since they can catch thousands of pounds of by-catch, and in the Gulf of Mexico most of the by-catch are Blacktip Shark.
So let's be fair about who's being the bad actor here. Out on the High Seas, mostly about 200 miles offshore and further, unless you are a US fishing vessel you can take all the shark you want. Many of the fishing boats are based in the Orient. It is legal even though morally reprehensible. I think Oceana is working on international laws that wold help solve the problem.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:50 am
20 Mar 2008
Another legal matter:
The defendants convinced the appeals judge that they were not liable for taking sharks for the purpose of cutting off their fins, because their vessel was not a true fishing boat:
<<
The appellate court ruled that the seizure and subsequent forfeiture of the money was wrong, because the boat was not a "fishing vessel" as defined by federal law.
The King Diamond II was chartered out of Honolulu by the Hong Kong company and sailed into international waters in June 2002. It met with about 20 fishing vessels there and purchased the shark fins.
>>
The defense's argument, apparently, was that other people caught the sharks and cut off their fins, and all the defendants did was buy the fins.
OK, so now: Is anybody at work to close this loophole in the law?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:38 am
20 Mar 2008
I'm trying to tell ya ...
It is illegal in the US to fin a shark so no change in that rule is needed.
If you want better enforcement by the Coast Guard, please get the troops out of Iraq and double the size of the Coast Guard to protect our shores and fisheries.
The fact is that the Coast Guard has caught several large illegal shipments done with "mother ships." In this case they did not win on appeals - not because of the law but because of poor surveillance.
Just because you make another darn law, put up a sign, and talk about it does not make an effective strategy in the real world. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:09 am
20 Mar 2008
OK, Counsel, but
these guys were caught and thrown into the brig and then taken to see the judge -- and the judge said, "Oh gosh, you poor children, I am so sorry," and gave them back their money. So if we do not need more and better legislation, and if enforcement by the Coast Guard is working well enough, what then DO we need?
I should gladly love to end our military involvement in Iraq, as per your request, dear Sammie. Notice, however, how the two presidential candidates who might actually accomplish that sooner rather than later are spectacularly collapsing.
And I remind you of an excellent passing suggestion that Jon Rynn made not long ago, that the US Navy should have the job of regulating fisheries on the open ocean.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:55 am
20 Mar 2008
Not a bad idea!
One of my points was that the Coast Guard was woefully underfunded and cannot cover all its mandates for homeland security (god I hate that term), safety, navigation, fisheries, and smuggling. I did not say they were fine right now by any means, and perhaps only 10% of the perps get caught.
As to the US Navy running fisheries and protecting whales offshore on the High Sea, I had to chuckle: I'd love to see it. Instead of killing whales with submarine sonar they'd be required to mother them like babies! Hey, all species including sharks for that matter. Can you imagine all those admirals foaming at the mouth?
This topic - the international waters and the International Law of the Sea (LOS) is now a very hot topic. Apparently, there's gold, oil, or something good under the North Pole and 4 countries have claimed it - most recently the Russians who "planted" some kind of funky flag down there. It's literally wave of the future stuff - especially when all the ice melts. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink