and when I go to the aquarium I get hungry when I walk around. The main thing here is people mankind needs some control or else things would get out of hand. Yes it would be easier to regulate it then to out right ban it but we all know regulations won't help because people will abuse it.

At first it's a big deal but we will get used to it and then it won't even matter anymore once acceptance kicks in.

Totally disagree with this. I am the least vegetarian person you'll ever meet, and I think shark finning is bad. It's not because they are 'cute' or 'cool' animals, it's because, well I already posted the reasons earlier. It is just stupid and pointless to waste animals like that.

I don't think it's been mentioned, but when the sharks are dumped back in the ocean they actually drown to death. They need to keep moving to oxygenate their body.

I think one of the reason it needs to be banned, is because it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to regulate and enforce humane slaughter and overfishing of sharks on the high seas.

If you ban the import and sale, you don't have to waste shit tons of money trying to enforce the harvest.

Moreover, it's not like cocaine or weed. It's not everyone in the world that is trying to consume the product. It's directed mostly to certain Asian markets. Ban them in those markets, or enforce embargos to force their banishment and the demand should dwindle. Again, it's not weed or cocaine. We've done it with various other animal byproducts, like Ivory, with relative success.

It all boils down to sustainability. Whenever we are draining a resource that we cannot sustain or replenish at the rate we are consuming it, the natural reaction is to limit harvest and consumption, and the natural consequent reaction of that is for those who make a living on that resource to bitch and complain about the increased cost and decreased profitability.

I'm sorry but that's what happens if you choose to invest your livelihood into something that is not sustainable!!!! Deal with it!

I say tax it. A form of regulation, send those tax dollars to enforcement.

I agree with what most people have said, that it would bring about the extinction of most species of sharks. But hey, who are we to talk when in Canada we've done it with Atlantic cod. Soon to our salmon stocks too.

Money is the biggest motivator in this world, if our government got a cut, they'd be singing a different tune.

I think sustainability is one of the main factors here.

Large sharks, as far as I know, need an overwhelming amount of room in order to breed and grow, which makes it seemingly impossible to create "farms" for large shark species. So only the small species would be viable to begin with.

Sharks also have a very low growth rate. It can take years before one can mature into a reasonable market size in order to be farmed.

On top of that, they are extremely picky eaters in captivity and usually will only accept low protein, high grade food, which will outweigh the cost to raise one vs the money generated from farmed sharks.

Aquatic animals are much harder to raise/take care of compared to their land counterparts and in general cost a lot more.

Not sure if these examples sound stupid or not haha:

But comparing shark farms to a chicken or cow farm isn't accurate since these animals are not apex predators. A more accurate comparison would be to the tusks from an elephant. So it would be like saying "why don't we create elephant farms so they are no longer endangered and we can farm ivory in a sustainable fashion".

Or

Since lions are similar to a shark's counterpart on land when referred to as an apex predator, try to imagine how hard it would be to create a "lion farm" if, hypothetically, we started developing a liking for lion meat.

Farming sharks in a sustainable way just doesn't seem practical, and regardless of how much the world is educated on the subject, it seems to simply fall on deaf ears. Just look at the stupid fucking responses in this thread alone. It's about time to take some more drastic actions like banning it. Fuck tradition.

As for the government telling us what to do issue, in this case, it's clear that they are making the correct choice by banning it. I don't have a problem with it.

A lot of extremely stupid and ignorant posts in this thread.

Anyhow, for all of the guys liking to eat shark fin - it is actually bad for your body.

Every time you go up one level in the food chain, the amount of mercury goes about 10x

Sharks, as an apex predator, have an exponentially higher level of mercury in their bodies.
This is why top level predators, such as shark, marlin, large tuna, and other large predatory fish, has high enough levels of mercury to be harmful to your health.

Most people don't really don't give a damn about any sort of ingredient or food until they are told that it is bad for them.

I've been against shark fin soup for well over a decade now - I am glad that it is now receiving the attention that it deserves.

Shark Truth

In the majority of anti-shark fin websites mention bioaccumulation of mercury in sharks.

In case anyone thinks what I posted about mercury bioaccumulation in apex predators is fake and propaganda, here is a link from a reputable journal with numbers and details.

Toxic Sharks

"A new study has shown, in at least one species of shark, just how high those levels can be. Burger et al analyzed 19 species of fish caught in coastal New Jersey waters for levels of methylmercury (MeHg), a chemical that causes significant human toxicity, and is particularly dangerous for the children’s developing brains. They found the highest levels of MeHg in large predatory species - shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Levels of MeHg in mako reached 1.8 parts per million (ppm), while those in bluefin averaged around 0.5 ppm. The US Environmental Protection Agency has stated the people should not eat fish with MeHg levels greater than 0.3 ppm -- mako shark MeHg levels were 6 times the recommended safe level for human consumption, and bluefin levels nearly twice the safe limit.

The toxicity of MeHg in the body is offset to some degree by levels of Selenium (Se), as these two chemicals compete for binding to key enzymes. So fish carrying high levels of MeHg, which also have high levels of Se, can be considered (somewhat) less toxic. Burger et al measured Se levels in their fish, and found higher than average levels of Se in bluefin tuna, which might help to offset the toxicity of this fish. (Though consuming large amounts of tuna is still not recommended.) Mako however had relatively low levels of Se, magnifying the dangers of eating this fish."

Burger, J, Jeitner, C, and Gochfeld, M. (2011) Locational differences in mercury and selenium levels in 19 Species of saltwater fish from New Jersey. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health A, 74:863-874.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Abstract

Individuals who fish, and their families that ingest self-caught fish, make decisions about where to fish, what type of fish to eat, and the quantity of fish to eat. While federal and state agencies often issue consumption advisories for some fish with high mercury (Hg) concentrations, advisories seldom provide the actual metal levels to the general public. There are few data for most saltwater fish, and even less information on variations in Hg levels in fish within a state or geographical region. The objective of this study was to provide Hg concentrations from 19 species of fish caught in different locations in New Jersey to (1) test the hypothesis that mean metal levels vary geographically, (2) provide this information to individuals who fish these coastal waters, and (3) provide a range of values for risk assessors who deal with saltwater fish exposure in the Northeastern United States. Selenium (Se) was also examined because of its purported moderating effect on the toxicity of Hg. Hg levels showed significant geographical variation for 10 of 14 species that were caught in more than one region of New Jersey, but there were significant locational differences for Se in only 5 of the fish. Mercury levels were significantly lower in fish collected from northern New Jersey (except for ling, Molva molva), compared to other regions. As might be expected, locational differences in Hg levels were greatest for fish species with the highest Hg concentrations (shark, Isurus oxyrinchus; tuna, Thunnus thynnus and T. albacares; striped bass, Morone saxatilis; bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix). Fishers and their families might reduce their risk from Hg exposure not only by selecting fish generally lower in Hg, but by fishing predominantly in some regions over others, further lowering the potential risk. Health professionals might use these data to advise patients on which fish are safest to consume (in terms of Hg exposure) from particular geographical regions.

I don't really care about the shark fin thing one way or another. If it's there, I'll eat it. I won't order it myself. If it's banned, I won't cry about it.

But...that article is full of some ignorant ass bullshit from that dude. Provides jobs? If sharks aren't kept in check, they'll overrun the food chain? Chinese people are actually helping by eating sharks? Wow.

apex predator of the sea... is going to get replaced by the apex predator of the earth, us.

IMO not caring, or eating it when served, is just as bad as going out and ordering it yourself. You put it out there that you are basically in support of finning endangered sharks.

regarding the topic of gvnt telling people what to do - tho for the most part i agree im not sure in this case.

if its legal to eat shark finnbut illegal to capture it, then people will still eat it and pay a higher price. ultimately mite mean een more money in poacher pockets. if its banned on all ends tho many who were eating it will stop buying it due to it being illegal.

with sturgeon it is only legal to fish some types of sturgeon and i believe they must be from either a particular area or farmed. i personally hate sharks and dont care foremost about the suffering element. rather, im just not for unregulated capturing of animals or fish without some thought about making sure its done strategically. in addition the wastefullness elemet is a shame - if ur gonna kill something at least have the decency to use it all

I haven't read everything in here, but already know exactly what I need to say. People say who are we to regulate what they can eat? Who decides wether its moral or not?
It has nothing to do with a "hey its not ok to eat this because its an amazing animal and we like it"
Its the fact that nearly the entire industry has inhumane methods of acquiring the products, and has no regard for the sustainability of the species. Types of sharks are being fished to near extinction. Thats why it has to stop. Don't fucking compare it to cows or even foie gras. Types of cows and ducks are not on the brink of extinction due to our consumption. We don't cut the sirloin of the cow and leave it to bleed to death on a pasture. We don't tear the liver out of the duck and leave it to die of blood poisoning.

why is it always the chinese

Swag

actually the way fois gras is acquired is considered by many to be extremely inhumane. The duck is force fed every few hours by shoving a tube down its throat when it is stuffed. Then when it gets fat to the point where it's almost bound to die, they kill it

cows are also inhumanely treated one can argue as i believe they are on an assembly line, actualy seeing theb lade that's about to chop them to bits. Tied up, and heading to their impending death.

the difference as you pointed out is that both of these animals are farmed, such that they will not go extinct, and regulated, such that measures are taken for the well being of the species. And like you said, all of the cow is eaten.

THANK YOU!!!!

HOLY F*CK AT THE LEVEL OF STUPIDITY EXHIBITED BY SOME OF THE LONGER TERM MEMBERS :failed::failed::failed::failed:

Disclaimer: I try to only consume goods that are from sustainble sources. I do my part to recycle/compost/plant trees @ local community events. Though harsh, and I'm not pro-government, the banning of shark-fin consumption is justified IMHO.

I go to a lot of weddings where shark fin is unfortunately still served. I never eat it, and while I will not be a nuisance and push my ideologies onto others, especially at someone's wedding, I will not hesitate to explain why if asked. Admittingly, I actually think it's delicious - both soup base and the fin texture - and I grew up having it, so it's a slightly bigger "sacrifice" to forgo it (and a few years ago, be the subject of ridicule at festivities before the notion that it is ridiculous to consume it became commonplace). Taste wise, the texture is *very* different from the gelatin imitation.

But really, there are so many other culinary options out there - why do I have to be a prick and whine about not having ONE food item out of so many that is morally reprehensible, completely unsustainable, stupidly expensive and fosters an illicit market? Why do you? It's not as if they banned seafood - there's still sustainable "luxury" Chinese options available such as abalone (certain sources), fish maw, sea cucumber etc. I really can't see how anyone who defends this has any leg to stand on. The best argument I have heard is that it impinges on people's freedom to choose, but you're on the slippery slope where someone could then argue they should be allowed to eat dogs, chimpanzees, babies etc. to give them that "freedom". Ridiculous.

I'm for banning it, as long as when sharks are plentiful again, we can eat them again.

What's wrong eating dogs? :troll:

I keep hearing the Chinese use the word "tradition" to defend their practice of eating shark fins.
I'm not Asian so can someone specify to me how far back this "tradition" goes ?
I did a quick google search and this is what I found

"The story goes that shark fin soup was created by an emperor in the Sung Dynasty (AD 968) who wanted to show how powerful, wealthy and generous he was to his banquet guests. Serving the expensive dish came to be seen as a sign of respect."



I kind of knew it couldn't have gone back very far because, (and maybe I'm wrong) that there was no sharks native to the Chinese coastlines, so figured the tradition couldn't have gone back very far. But I do know however the Chinese have a long tradition of seafaring and trade. So my point is for them to pull the tradition card is pretty much bullshit, I don't know how many will agree, because even though it's a thousand years old, like I said the Chinese culture itself extends thousands of years so a thousand years is nothing to them really.


Now on the same note of "traditional" foods, the other reason (and this doesn't apply really to shark fin soup) of why I'm always the first to call bullshit on certain cultures that eat weird fcked up shit, my reasoning behind that is when someone wants to call something like rat meat, or some other weird type of animals or plants even a "delicacy & tradition" it's like dude, the only reason your ancestors ate that shit in ancient times is because they were probably in a drought and starvation was rampant throughout the land and they had no choice. Not because there were chefs looking around to create a new fcking menu.....

I personally love the taste of carp fin and I hope that shit doesn't get banned.

Actually, to be serious, I can't think of one reason why it's somehow morally reprehensible to eat a dog, but not a pig. Seems like the reason people find shark fin so bad to eat is because of the wastage.

What if there was no wastage, and the share was slaughter and sustainably fished? Would people still be okay with shark fin then? (Although prices would probably skyrocket)

"Tradition" is almost always a bullshit excuse for people to do really fucked up shit. Often goes hand in hand with "Religion"