Is shark FINNING morally acceptable? [Bushbush (acceptable) vs Ragbag (not acceptable)]

[bushbush]

since we are elevating this debate to the level of moral discussion, it's necessary to first establish a moral framework in regards to the relations between humans and sea creatures, especially shark in this case.

as we all know, fishing has been the constant part of our society since the beginning of human history. How important is fishing in our lives, i will let this source speak for me:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ercial-fishing

"Fishing is one of the primary forms of food production; it ranks with farming and probably predates it. The fishing industry employs more than 5 million people worldwide. The major countries engaged in marine fishing are Japan, China, the U.S., Chile, Peru, India, South Korea, Thailand, and the countries of northern Europe. The aquatic life harvested includes both marine and freshwater species of fish, shellfish, mammals, and seaweed. They are processed into food for human consumption, animal feeds, fertilizers, and ingredients for use in other commercial commodities."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, the relationship between human and sea creatures in general is, for most part in history to this day, that of consumption for our needs, being basic survival, additional nutrition, delicacy, recreation, or many other purposes. It's key to our economy, to our health, and to our standard of living.

In essence, unfortunately, sea creatures of various kinds have been killed for our consumption throughout our history and is not likely to go away any time soon. Perhaps that's why MURDERING a fish, is never considered a crime of punishment in every country (exceptions will be discussed later in the post). Thus, the moral concern of killing a fish is not really on par in that of what many consider the ultimate breach of morality, killing a human being. In fact, it perhaps rank faaaaaaaaar beyond that, to the extent that each year, an average human being consumes the number of fish he or she probably can't even recount, showing the degree of lack of general concern in destroying the lives of "poor" fish from the river and sea.

establishing that, now we move on to the next level of this discussion, is fishing for the purpose of additional nutrition, pleasure (delicacy), status symbol and other non-survival purposes a problem? That's NOT a difficult question to ask before the recent years. Almost every culture who has access to seafood at certain point in history has developed its own cuisine made from fish. Are they really all that necessary for physical survival? Not really. But as humans, if we are all created equal and with certain fundamental rights and needs, pursuing of happiness is certainly within our nature and rights; pursuing a degree of pleasure from delicacy of seafood is rarely seen as morally unacceptable, especially from the perspective of killing fish. This goes back to the previous point, fish simply worth less in our moral system. We can't kill humans for pleasure, but eating fish for that has never been seen as a problem just because the fish is being killed.

moving on, now what about the method of fishing and processing?
In the past, cruelty against animal has not really been much of a concern. With our standard of living going up in the past century, our consciousness of animals' well being suddenly is on the agenda, with the concerns of our own survival being less of an issue obviously. This is especially popular, the new love for animal, in developed countries. People in developing countries of course care less; if they can't even feed themselves, what's the point of worrying about dogs, cats and other creatures (goes back to point #1, human lives are the most important). With this new concern for animals' well being arising, several views prompt up, i will just generalize them as extreme and mainstream.

extreme: Groups such as PETA, view animals as equal with humans, condemn all killing, preaching vegetarianism. This is not mainstream because the dominant morality system in the world is still that humans are the most important creature while animals are less.

mainstream: We will still eat meat and kill animals, but the method shall be the least painful one as we should avoid excessive cruelty in the unfortunate fact that WE MUST KILL THEM as a part of functioning basis of our society, our survival, and our pursuit of happiness. This view also branches out, arguing that endangered animals should be protected, a sign that environmentalism is becoming more mainstream. We shall now lead into the question of shark finning.

------------------

Shark finning is the process of cutting the fins off from the shark. I will use our above morality framework to evaluate it.

#1. is the life of a shark as valuable as a human?

NO.

sharks traditionally have been viewed in our morality system as other sea creature,

http://www.wildaid.org/endangeredspe...ID=5&MORE=Show

"Millions of people from coastal communities see the shark as a cheap of source protein. In many cultures dependent on subsistence fishing, sharks are used in their entirety; their meat, fins, liver, skin, teeth and cartilage."

#2. is shark fishery a traditional part of human history?

see above.

#3. is killing a shark generally considered immoral in history?

nope, in fact, it's always viewed as a dangerous and feared creature in the past.

#4. is consumption of shark parts considered immoral?

As per #1, it's in fact the livelihood of many people and a delicacy in asia since Ming dynasty.

#5. why is shark finning is suddenly now an issue?

It's mainly the decline of shark population, "worldwide catches by industrial fishing fleets have escalated phenomenally over the past 20 years, and many of the world's shark and ray species are now severely depleted."

also there are concerns of the method in which it is killed, specifically the live finning of many sharks, who are thrown overboard once their fins were cut and they were left to die in a slow and painful manner.

#6. does that all of sudden make shark finning immoral?

I disagree on this point.

First, shark fishery and shark finning self are NOT immoral based on the general morality framework detailing the relationship between human and sea creatures. It's nature we eat them. It's even more natural we eat them to seek pleasure and fulfill our lives.

Second, the two issues of extinction and cruelty are not unavoidable.

For one, "Three notable species of shark are classified as Endangered: the Great White, Whale and Basking sharks", we must ban hunting of those that are classified as endangered and set quote for ones that are being hunted beyond the standard of sustainability. If we can hunt sharks for centuries with no problem, why can't we go back to the previous stage of cycle of hunting and re-producing for sharks?

More importnatly, "An estimated 50% of all sharks taken are caught unintentionally as 'bycatch' in other fisheries. Shark bycatches are often caught in longline fisheries such as tuna and swordfish, and as these popular fish become increasingly depleted, restricted, or seasonally unavailable, fishermen are turning to sharks as an alternative. Sharks caught as bycatch are often 'finned', and the rest of their bodies, often still alive, are subsequently thrown overboard." It's key to restrict FISHING in general, as more and more desperate measure of fishing (larger nets, smaller holes and larger and more frequent fishing trips) are causing more and more bycatch, which is a KEY reason in the sharp drop of shark population.

Specifically, a strong ban on killing of bycatch sharks for fin should be instituded, bycaught shark should be released if still alive. Per previous source, "The major shark fishing nations are Indonesia, followed by India, the U.S., Pakistan, Mexico and Taiwan Province of China. Other important countries are Japan, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Malaysia, France, the UK, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Spain, New Zealand and the Maldives." All those countries must bear responsibility for this.

For the issue of cruelty,
http://www.iwmc.org/PDF/StraitsTPress.pdf
The finning of dead shark would be on the standard of humane as it would not cause a painful and slow death. Most live finning is done as per article by fishermen who bycatch shark and commit crime in illegally live finning. If the law is more strictly enforced, this would be less of an issue. Countries listed in the previous paragraph must be responsible for that. We can enjoy shark fin soup without making shark suffer unnecessarily painful death.

-------------------------

to summarize:

I believe shark fishery and finning, if following proper protocol of sustainability and minimizing cruelty, is as big a moral issue as killing any other fish for our consumption. More importantly, consumption for pleasure is not a sin. The key is to avoid doing so at the expense of causing unrepairable damage to the eco system and unnecessary pain to sharks. If we avoid those, i can say it proudly, i eat shark fin soup without shame as what people have done for centuries.

thanks for ratbag for this debate btw.

[Ratbag]

You opened with the statement that shark fishing is very important in the human culture and I fully agree with this. Unless it is causing a species to decline hugely in numbers and endangering it of becoming extinct, which is the case with many of the shark species. Even the ones that are not endangered at this time stand on the brink of becoming so.

"The world's rising demand for shark fins is killing as many as 73 million sharks a year, according to a new study. The figure is three times higher than the official catch number reported to the United Nations and raises concern that the trade is having a devastating impact on shark species worldwide.
One of the most productive sharks is the blue shark, and it appears that the catch rate is near the maximum sustainable level," says Clarke. "But such assessments were not available for other, less productive shark species. It is quite likely that sustainable catch levels have already been exceeded in some cases." -- Source : Environment News Service

So the blue shark is one of the sharks that reproduces at the highest rates possible for sharks. For now the number being caught for those is near the maximum sustainable level, so their number stay at a stable level. But like I said the blue shark is one of the fastest reproducing sharks in the world. Other shark who reproduce at a much lower rate are being over-fished and so those species number are plummeting.

“To put it bluntly, shark populations have been decimated. Globally. Tens of millions of sharks are slaughtered every year to satisfy the demand for shark fin soup; at least 8,000 tons of shark fins are shipped to restaurants around the world. Fishermen report that sharks are getting smaller because they are not being given time to mature. Shark populations take a long time to recover as they can take over seven years to reach maturity and they only raise one or two pups a year. Twenty species of sharks are listed as endangered by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). In a few years many species of shark could become extinct if action is not taken immediately. Populations of many shark species have fallen by over 90%. Since 1972 the number of blacktip sharks has fallen by 93%, tiger sharks by 97% and bull sharks, dusky sharks and smooth hammerheads by 99%.” -- Source : Shark Society

Also the way that shark finning is practiced is despicable to say the least. After being caught the dorsal fin is cut off while the animal is still alive. Because the shark meat itself is worth a lot less then the fins the shark is thrown back into the ocean. Being unable to swim the sharks sink to the bottom of the sea where they either die of starvation or are eaten by other animals.

To conclude on this part of my rebuttal, the reason I said this all is because I agree with you that fishing is part of human culture but to exterminate a species by doing so is not morally acceptable. Neither is the fact that the sharks are mutilated to left to die of starvation. Also the fact that 95% of the total shark meat is thrown back into the ocean seems like a total waste and makes it rather useless to kill the shark for only a small part of the eatable meat.

#6. does that all of sudden make shark finning immoral?

I disagree on this point.

First, shark fishery and shark finning self are NOT immoral based on the general morality framework detailing the relationship between human and sea creatures. It's nature we eat them. It's even more natural we eat them to seek pleasure and fulfill our lives.

I agree with you on the part that it is human nature to hunt and eat fish. It are the latter parts of this argument that I have problems with as I shall explain.

Second, the two issues of extinction and cruelty are not unavoidable.

For one, "Three notable species of shark are classified as Endangered: the Great White, Whale and Basking sharks", we must ban hunting of those that are classified as endangered and set quote for ones that are being hunted beyond the standard of sustainability. If we can hunt sharks for centuries with no problem, why can't we go back to the previous stage of cycle of hunting and re-producing for sharks?

Your claim that there are 3 species of sharks that are being classified as endangered is faulty as a list on the shark foundation : Hai-Stiftung shows. Out of the 400 shark species currently on the endangered list 100 are still being caught commercially today. Many of these shark species are still being overexploited that even their long-time survival can no longer be guaranteed. As I said before over-fishing a species to the extent of whipping out their existence is certainly not morally expectable even though fishing is part of the human culture.

More importnatly, "An estimated 50% of all sharks taken are caught unintentionally as 'bycatch' in other fisheries. Shark bycatches are often caught in longline fisheries such as tuna and swordfish, and as these popular fish become increasingly depleted, restricted, or seasonally unavailable, fishermen are turning to sharks as an alternative. Sharks caught as bycatch are often 'finned', and the rest of their bodies, often still alive, are subsequently thrown overboard." It's key to restrict FISHING in general, as more and more desperate measure of fishing (larger nets, smaller holes and larger and more frequent fishing trips) are causing more and more bycatch, which is a KEY reason in the sharp drop of shark population. Specifically, a strong ban on killing of bycatch sharks for fin should be instituded, bycaught shark should be released if still alive. Per previous source, "The major shark fishing nations are Indonesia, followed by India, the U.S., Pakistan, Mexico and Taiwan Province of China. Other important countries are Japan, Argentina, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Malaysia, France, the UK, the Republic of Korea, Thailand, Spain, New Zealand and the Maldives." All those countries must bear responsibility for this.

For the issue of cruelty,
http://www.iwmc.org/PDF/StraitsTPress.pdf
The finning of dead shark would be on the standard of humane as it would not cause a painful and slow death. Most live finning is done as per article by fishermen who bycatch shark and commit crime in illegally live finning. If the law is more strictly enforced, this would be less of an issue. Countries listed in the previous paragraph must be responsible for that. We can enjoy shark fin soup without making shark suffer unnecessarily painful death.

By-catching is a large part of the reason (50% like you said) shark numbers are on the decline and actions should be taken to lower these numbers. But the other 50% of the sharks being caught are by specialized shark-fining companies. If we were to(fully or partially)restrict this barbaric habit it would do much good for the sharks. That together with more actions being taken against by-catching should be enough to save those 100 shark species already on the list of endangered animals.

I believe shark fishery and finning, if following proper protocol of sustainability and minimizing cruelty, is as big a moral issue as killing any other fish for our consumption. More importantly, consumption for pleasure is not a sin. The key is to avoid doing so at the expense of causing unrepairable damage to the eco system and unnecessary pain to sharks. If we avoid those, i can say it proudly, i eat shark fin soup without shame as what people have done for centuries.

Shark finning could be morally acceptable if the sharks would be killed in a humane way first (like with a captive bolt pistol) and if the whole carcass except for the fins were not to be thrown back into the. IF it doesn’t cause a huge decline the number of sharks worldwide as is the case now. But the current way that shark finning is currently being executed in most certainly NOT morally acceptable.

[bushbush]

You opened with the statement that shark fishing is very important in the human culture and I fully agree with this. Unless it is causing a species to decline hugely in numbers and endangering it of becoming extinct, which is the case with many of the shark species. Even the ones that are not endangered at this time stand on the brink of becoming so.

"The world's rising demand for shark fins is killing as many as 73 million sharks a year, according to a new study. The figure is three times higher than the official catch number reported to the United Nations and raises concern that the trade is having a devastating impact on shark species worldwide.
One of the most productive sharks is the blue shark, and it appears that the catch rate is near the maximum sustainable level," says Clarke. "But such assessments were not available for other, less productive shark species. It is quite likely that sustainable catch levels have already been exceeded in some cases." -- Source : Environment News Service

So the blue shark is one of the sharks that reproduces at the highest rates possible for sharks. For now the number being caught for those is near the maximum sustainable level, so their number stay at a stable level. But like I said the blue shark is one of the fastest reproducing sharks in the world. Other shark who reproduce at a much lower rate are being over-fished and so those species number are plummeting.

“To put it bluntly, shark populations have been decimated. Globally. Tens of millions of sharks are slaughtered every year to satisfy the demand for shark fin soup; at least 8,000 tons of shark fins are shipped to restaurants around the world. Fishermen report that sharks are getting smaller because they are not being given time to mature. Shark populations take a long time to recover as they can take over seven years to reach maturity and they only raise one or two pups a year. Twenty species of sharks are listed as endangered by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). In a few years many species of shark could become extinct if action is not taken immediately. Populations of many shark species have fallen by over 90%. Since 1972 the number of blacktip sharks has fallen by 93%, tiger sharks by 97% and bull sharks, dusky sharks and smooth hammerheads by 99%.” -- Source : Shark Society

I would argue that based on the experience of centuries of shark finning, managing it to a sustainable level is possible, the key is that the listed countries in the OP (major killers of sharks and producers of shark fins) enlist tougher regulations and enforcement to control this shady industry. Right now the enforcement of the ban of killing bycatch sharks and live finning are seldom enforced even in big countries like the US (though they are passing a law to regulate that). If that can happen, we wouldn't be discussing this issue right now.

Also the way that shark finning is practiced is despicable to say the least. After being caught the dorsal fin is cut off while the animal is still alive. Because the shark meat itself is worth a lot less then the fins the shark is thrown back into the ocean. Being unable to swim the sharks sink to the bottom of the sea where they either die of starvation or are eaten by other animals.

To conclude on this part of my rebuttal, the reason I said this all is because I agree with you that fishing is part of human culture but to exterminate a species by doing so is not morally acceptable. Neither is the fact that the sharks are mutilated to left to die of starvation. Also the fact that 95% of the total shark meat is thrown back into the ocean seems like a total waste and makes it rather useless to kill the shark for only a small part of the eatable meat.

I agree with you on the part that it is human nature to hunt and eat fish. It are the latter parts of this argument that I have problems with as I shall explain.

If you read the last source of my OP, you will see that regulated shark finning (not bycatching method) is finning the DEAD sharks, thus removing the cruelty of leaving them dying without its fins. More importantly, regular finning is a part of process that uses the shark's meat, liver and other parts (as per OP source). Thus it's not wasteful and it's humane. More importantly, regulated finning can be controlled in the # of sharks taken, rather than the shady killing done in bycatching.

Your claim that there are 3 species of sharks that are being classified as endangered is faulty as a list on the shark foundation : Hai-Stiftung shows. Out of the 400 shark species currently on the endangered list 100 are still being caught commercially today. Many of these shark species are still being overexploited that even their long-time survival can no longer be guaranteed. As I said before over-fishing a species to the extent of whipping out their existence is certainly not morally expectable even though fishing is part of the human culture.

minor note: the source says the NOTABLE three are those sharks,not only 3.

By-catching is a large part of the reason (50% like you said) shark numbers are on the decline and actions should be taken to lower these numbers. But the other 50% of the sharks being caught are by specialized shark-fining companies. If we were to(fully or partially)restrict this barbaric habit it would do much good for the sharks. That together with more actions being taken against by-catching should be enough to save those 100 shark species already on the list of endangered animals.

I would say the pirority is first regulating bycatching, which is where the live finning, the waste of shark's body and uncontrolled, unreported killings happened (youtube vids are records of those). If only tougher laws and enforcement are implemented, those will continue.

legal and lawful capturing of sharks, killing it after its death, usage of its almost entire body and finally proper records of # killed should be maintained and controlled. That's my whole view of this. Finning the shark while it's dead and finning a proper # of it is acceptable, morally or economically or environmentally speaking.

Shark finning could be morally acceptable if the sharks would be killed in a humane way first (like with a captive bolt pistol) and if the whole carcass except for the fins were not to be thrown back into the. IF it doesn’t cause a huge decline the number of sharks worldwide as is the case now. But the current way that shark finning is currently being executed in most certainly NOT morally acceptable.

I don't see much disagrement. My conclusion "I believe shark fishery and finning, if following proper protocol of sustainability and minimizing cruelty, is as big a moral issue as killing any other fish for our consumption." versus yours lol.

the difference is that i think regulated finning at the present meets that standard while bycatching and illegal brutal killings don't. Thus the latter must be controlled and eliminated while the former is only regulated.

[Ratbag]

I would argue that based on the experience of centuries of shark finning, managing it to a sustainable level is possible, the key is that the listed countries in the OP (major killers of sharks and producers of shark fins) enlist tougher regulations and enforcement to control this shady industry. Right now the enforcement of the ban of killing bycatch sharks and live finning are seldom enforced even in big countries like the US (though they are passing a law to regulate that). If that can happen, we wouldn't be discussing this issue right now.

But trough the demand of shark fins has risen in an alarming rate the amount of sharks being finned has skyrocketed.The largest part of shark-fins goes to Asia were the soup that is made with it is a status-symbol. Because the avarage person becoming richer(Economics and all that, won't go into that deeper.)more and more people are having it. This leaves the market open for illegally caught shark fins. It should be the governments job to crack down on this more strictly but because it's a thriving economy booster they don't. Thus coming to the moral part. If everything was done properly illegally caught fins would not be released onto the market, lowering the number of sharks killed significantly. So it's morally wrong of the government (of countries all over the world, not only Asia) to allow this.

If you read the last source of my OP, you will see that regulated shark finning (not bycatching method) is finning the DEAD sharks, thus removing the cruelty of leaving them dying without its fins. More importantly, regular finning is a part of process that uses the shark's meat, liver and other parts (as per OP source). Thus it's not wasteful and it's humane. More importantly, regulated finning can be controlled in the # of sharks taken, rather than the shady killing done in bycatching.

I had a quick glance at it reading a large part of it but not everything. I appoligise for that, but that makes my point of the government being morally wrong at not cracking down on illegally caught fins. If everything is done legaly and it works in quotas to make sure the shark population won't be on the decline, then it's all good. But that is certainly not the case at this point, mainly because of the government turning a blind eye to it, which is morally wrong.

minor note: the source says the NOTABLE three are those sharks,not only 3.

I know but I just wanted to point out that the problem is significantly bigger then 3 sharks.

I would say the pirority is first regulating bycatching, which is where the live finning, the waste of shark's body and uncontrolled, unreported killings happened (youtube vids are records of those). If only tougher laws and enforcement are implemented, those will continue.

Validating my point that at this point shark finning is not done morally correct.

legal and lawful capturing of sharks, killing it after its death, usage of its almost entire body and finally proper records of # killed should be maintained and controlled. That's my whole view of this. Finning the shark while it's dead and finning a proper # of it is acceptable, morally or economically or environmentally speaking.

Only if there are strict regulations to preserve the shark species with special attention to the endangered 100's of sharks which are currently still being caught on large scales, I agree with you on this. But do note.. ONLY IF

I don't see much disagrement. My conclusion "I believe shark fishery and finning, if following proper protocol of sustainability and minimizing cruelty, is as big a moral issue as killing any other fish for our consumption." versus yours lol.

There is no disagreement with the fact that if done legally and humanly (with an eye on preserving the shark populations) it is morally acceptable but the fact remains that at this point the regulations are not being stricly monitored and as a result, not uphold and thus not morally acceptable.

the difference is that i think regulated finning at the present meets that standard while bycatching and illegal brutal killings don't. Thus the latter must be controlled and eliminated while the former is only regulated.

Catching and finning endangered species is not acceptable in neither the former nor the latter cases. The quota of sharks caught is being violated by both parties causing the species to dwindle.

[bushbush]

But trough the demand of shark fins has risen in an alarming rate the amount of sharks being finned has skyrocketed.The largest part of shark-fins goes to Asia were the soup that is made with it is a status-symbol. Because the avarage person becoming richer(Economics and all that, won't go into that deeper.)more and more people are having it. This leaves the market open for illegally caught shark fins. It should be the governments job to crack down on this more strictly but because it's a thriving economy booster they don't. Thus coming to the moral part. If everything was done properly illegally caught fins would not be released onto the market, lowering the number of sharks killed significantly. So it's morally wrong of the government (of countries all over the world, not only Asia) to allow this.

The demand back in the old days was probably higher; it was only suppressed since 1949 where the CCP wants an egalitarian society, so all these luxury was banned; now these demands only came back. But the problem is that there is a lack of international collective agreement and agency to specifically monitor and control and regulate this (especially an agency that actually has some power). If we can borrow the WTO model, which actually has power to hand down decisions that government of different countries have to follow, like say "Japan, stop your fishermen from doing this or you are being fined 10 million USD", then it's much easier to stop this.

as for the demand side of this issue, if we crack down, the price will go higher. But it's already a luxury goods. I can tell you the people who can afford to drink this don't really care if it goes up 100% in price. Do you think a multimillionaire cares to pay 100$ more for one bowl of soup? especially it's such a symbol of status.

I had a quick glance at it reading a large part of it but not everything. I appoligise for that, but that makes my point of the government being morally wrong at not cracking down on illegally caught fins. If everything is done legaly and it works in quotas to make sure the shark population won't be on the decline, then it's all good. But that is certainly not the case at this point, mainly because of the government turning a blind eye to it, which is morally wrong.

i would agree that government's negligence is morally wrong.

Validating my point that at this point shark finning is not done morally correct.

Actually legal finning is that of after death and complete usage of the shark body, plus requiring report of killing and also respecting quota. It's the bycatching that's truly immoral, that i can agree with you.

There is no disagreement with the fact that if done legally and humanly (with an eye on preserving the shark populations) it is morally acceptable but the fact remains that at this point the regulations are not being stricly monitored and as a result, not uphold and thus not morally acceptable.

so we agree that the activity itself, if regulated properly, is not immoral, but bycatching, without regulation of method, quantity and usage, is immoral?

[Ratbag]

The demand back in the old days was probably higher; it was only suppressed since 1949 where the CCP wants an egalitarian society, so all these luxury was banned; now these demands only came back. But the problem is that there is a lack of international collective agreement and agency to specifically monitor and control and regulate this (especially an agency that actually has some power). If we can borrow the WTO model, which actually has power to hand down decisions that government of different countries have to follow, like say "Japan, stop your fishermen from doing this or you are being fined 10 million USD", then it's much easier to stop this.

That would be a good system but because of the stance of the government this is not the case.
Also I think the demand in the old days could have been higher but because of the modern fishing equipment the actual number of finned sharks is higher these days, thus resulting in the lower price.

as for the demand side of this issue, if we crack down, the price will go higher. But it's already a luxury goods. I can tell you the people who can afford to drink this don't really care if it goes up 100% in price. Do you think a multimillionaire cares to pay 100$ more for one bowl of soup? especially it's such a symbol of status.

Yes, but because of the "low" price also common people have it, not as often as the rich people but nonetheless they do eat it. If the price were to be higher less people would eat it, dead-tracking the illegal (immoral) catching of sharks.

i would agree that government's negligence is morally wrong.

Thus making shark finning immoral at this point, as it's negligence causes illegal catches.

Actually legal finning is that of after death and complete usage of the shark body, plus requiring report of killing and also respecting quota. It's the bycatching that's truly immoral, that i can agree with you.

And by-catching is currently 50% (as you said) of the total shark finning.

so we agree that the activity itself, if regulated properly, is not immoral, but bycatching, without regulation of method, quantity and usage, is immoral?

Yes, but see the 2 answers above.


I think we both think shark fishing if done properly is not immoral but as it is done these days is immoral, no?

[bushbush]

That would be a good system but because of the stance of the government this is not the case.
Also I think the demand in the old days could have been higher but because of the modern fishing equipment the actual number of finned sharks is higher these days, thus resulting in the lower price.

The key difference is that modern fishing is producing too much bycatching, which is the source of unregulated killing, brutal method and waste of shark body.

A regulatory body as i have proposed is possible, like WTO, which has a lot of power over different governemnts. The key is that they have to work together. Right now it's just not there for a # of reasons. I would hope the US can take leadership over this (there is a bill coming up to stop bycatching kill) and hopefully other countries can follow suit to plug this dangerous hole.

Yes, but because of the "low" price also common people have it, not as often as the rich people but nonetheless they do eat it. If the price were to be higher less people would eat it, dead-tracking the illegal (immoral) catching of sharks.

Actually it's really a luxury goods that common people even today rarely enjoy it. A bowl is generally 400-500 Chinese dollar, average workers in china earn 2000-3000 chinese dollar A MONTH. It's way out of their league. Shark fin would be like the most elegant dish in other cuisine traditions, not something common people try more than once in their lives. People who are eating it are really multimillionares (in USD), they don't care to pay 500 RMB more for a bowl. So if there is a crack down, price goes up, it doesn't affect the market. So the key is that the government has to have WILL to do that.

at the present, the world recession is occupying their attention, hopefully in a few years there are more efforts on this issue.

Thus making shark finning immoral at this point, as it's negligence causes illegal catches.

only the bycathing, the regulated ones are not brutal (finning after death), not wasteful (use of full body) and not damaging to environment (following quote, reporting kill properly). The key is to crack down on bycatching.

And by-catching is currently 50% (as you said) of the total shark finning.

even reducing the total kill by 20-30% can really reverse the trend of shark's declining population. The jump on catching is mainly this 50%, bycatching, due to increase of modern fishing technology. If we can go by to 1970 and 1980 level of shark catching (after that shark population went in steep decline), it would be very sustainable in the long run.

I think we both think shark fishing if done properly is not immoral but as it is done these days is immoral, no?

the bycatching today is immoral but regulated one, which is done properly, is moral.

[Ratbag]

The by-catching of sharks today is immoral but the regulated shark catching business, which is done properly, is moral.

I declare this the outcome of our debate.

I must say I enjoyed it, if done in the proper place a 1 vs 1 debate can really teach you something, if it's in the Political Mudpit or the Thema Devia it just turn into a slander-fest.

So if we disagree on something again, lets take it here. Love this kind of debating.

[bushbush]

I declare this the outcome of our debate.

I must say I enjoyed it, if done in the proper place a 1 vs 1 debate can really teach you something, if it's in the Political Mudpit or the Thema Devia it just turn into a slander-fest.

So if we disagree on something again, lets take it here. Love this kind of debating.

I am glad that after a rational discussion we both discovered an acceptable middle ground and have a greater understanding of this issue.

thanks for your time again. Now please, as i understand it's probably 6-7am in Belgium, go to bed!!

[Ratbag]

Hehe.
Well I just couldn't sleep without having this cleared out and as the sun is already rising I might not go to sleep at all.