Shark conservation proposal defeated at U.N. meeting

Shark fin soup has long played central part in traditional Chinese culture,

Here we go again...Other countries trying to interfere with "customs" of other countries.

Dumb and dumber.

Shark poachers kill the animal, cut off its fin, and throw away it's carcass. Shark fin is mostly cartilage and has no taste nor nutritional value. Just because its somebody's tradition doesn't mean its stupid.

I really do not want to see a replica of a Great White Shark 50 years from now in a museum. Hokum Pokum, Voodoo, & witchcraft many people destroy sharks for their testosterone. Many black marketeers sell Bull Shark testosterone for their health. Who believes this voodoo nonsense ? Conservation is in need, to stop poachers cutting only 5% of the carcuss and throwing the 95% into the sea. Sharks are unique creatures just like dogs & etc.

Let's wipe out all life and finally eat solient green. Hmmm solient green.

Looks like Japan and China have cut a deal, Japan backs China on sharks, China backs Japan on tuna. Did China have any scientific evidence to back up their claim that there is no scientific evidence? Or are they just using the same logic as the "We are Japan and we love tuna, so no need to do anything" logic.

Its all good. I hate sharks. Exterminate them all.

The decision could be a bad omen for a two-week meeting that will

Wait wait, it's a good omen, IMO. How biased could the article be?

“What we saw today is those parties that disagree with listing commercially fished species on CITES making a stand,”

And why wouldn't they? The nations involved in the various fisheries management bodies are pretty much all CITES members. If the problem is that these fisheries management bodies are not doing their jobs properly, the solution is not for the same nations to sell their votes to NGOs at CITES, but to step up to the plate at the fisheries management bodies and take appropriate measures there. That way we'd have real working solutions that everyone could be happy with.

they will simply vote on the grounds that they don’t want to see any movement on conserving marine species.

Nonsense. Opposing trade bans is not the same as opposing conservation. The same nations arguing in favour of these trade bans should be taking appropriate management actions, rather than abidicate their responsibilities.

Developing countries like Libya and Morocco complained that any effort to protect sharks would damage the economies of poor fishing nations and burden them with expensive enforcement requirements.

Very good point. Exactly are these trade bans going to work if there is no money available for enforcement?

The Chinese delegation said there was no scientific evidence that the shark’s survival is threatened and CITES was not the right forum to handle the issue. The Chinese would prefer to leave regulation to existing tools like the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and regional bodies

Good job, China.

which conservationists argue have failed to crackdown on illegal fishing and even uphold their own modest quotas.

Exactly. So take it up with the fisheries management organizations and individual states as required. Rather than waste time with these non-solutions like abusing CITES.

Shark fin is mostly cartilage and has no taste

I couldn't disagree more strongly on the "has no taste" bit. It is fabulous.

But I am willing to make the sacrifice. I quit eating shark fin about 12 years ago.

By the way, did no one object based on the fact that this was "non-binding"? I mean, if it's got no teeth, isn't it a big waste of time?

I mean, if it's got no teeth

But sharks have many teeth....just thought I'd throw that in there. Really no meaning behind it.

Did China have any scientific evidence to back up their claim that there is no scientific evidence?

Evidence from an activist group showing a conclusion they wish to be true isn't much evidence either, is it?

Why does this debate always focus on Chinese food - and completely omit the Western market for shark cartilage supplements as a significant factor in the increased demand for shark?

Shark poachers kill the animal, cut off its fin, and throw away it's carcass.

They cut off the fin and throw the still-living shark back in the water to die a slow, agonising death.

Guess all fish is going to be banned in the future.

We use shark in fish'n'chups back in New Zealand. Tastes great.

Nice selective logic Pawatan. Disregard the "activist" group because they have an incentive to "wish" their conclusion is true, and ignore the fact that China has a much bigger incentive to "wish" the conclusion is not true, and to forget about the long-term to make money now .

The question stands - on what basis has China concluded that there is no scientific evidence? The article doesn't say. I guess if you want to believe it is all just "activist" BS you could always go to Newfoundland and work as a cod fisherman though. Oh sorry I forget - there are no cod anymore.

Doesn't closing markets just encourage black market poaching? Commercial fishermen wouldn't throw the rest of the shark overboard - it would be ground into fish meal fish sticks, etc.

Also, sharks are predators. They deplete already damaged fish stocks. If you want more deer, you get rid of the wolves. If you want more fish, you manage the shark population.

Japanese and Russians do not eat shark, but I am sure they must sell a lot of fins to the Chinese.

The question stands - on what basis has China concluded that there is no scientific evidence?

You can't prove there is no evidence. Patently illogical.

I imagine China didn't look to reports from activists but rather to unbiased scientists. You know, the ones without agendas. They may still exist but evidence points to them becoming an endangered species in today's highly politicized scientific environment.

Masterkuno can't believe you're very (INSERT epithet HERE)comment.The ecosystem is a delicate balance and MOTHER NATURE put NOTHING on the planet that does not play a VITAL ROLE except HUMANS. Who are basically F'n everything up. One day I'm off to the wilderness to find the last place I can grow my own food, raise my own game and fish and to hell with the rest of the world. Somewhere deep in ..... not gonna tell for fear someone else may go...

Argue the intricate points of the article all you like.

But before you put your points forward, you might like to google the history of nations like japan,russia and particulary china, with regards to any kind of marine management or land management for that matter.

Historically, they have opposed any international moves to protect OUR marine heritage, and have gone to great lenghts to encourage illegal catches,and thwart sustainable fishing regulations. The bodies they seek to "regulate" their fishing, instead of harsh bans, have a LONG history of being unable to properly regulate and wide open to manipulaion by these nations, so of course it is in their best interests to continue this allegance.

They firmly believe their "culture" should enable them to continue this cruel and unsustainable fishing practice, and others like it in regards to wildlife.

Headhunting was also a cherished "culture", does that make it right for this to continue today?

We need ONE incorruptable governing body to stand up, impose working import bans without loopholes and severly ENFORCE those regulations for non compliance, now .

And those nations as well as our grandchildren will be able to enjoy the presence of these species in the future, and fishermen will also be able to fish once again.

Sharyn, that's quite an impressive diatribe.

Sharyn, "before you put your points forward", please come up with some points. Nice clear facts would be ideal. Huges swipes are less so.

For starters, could you please let us know what reference frame you are using for "Historically"? 4000 years? 400 years? 40 year?

Using "OUR" and "THEY" is generally a sign of an emotional reaction, rather than a logical or academic response. Emotional reactions do little to forward true exchange of ideas and information.

How would people like it if some predator cut off one of their arms and threw them back into a cubicle to work? Humans and their "cultures" are very cruel and will eventually kill the oceans and all the fish, cetaceans, coral reefs. Hence we kill ourselves.

taj tokoyo,

Using "OUR" and "THEY" is generally a sign of an emotional reaction, rather than a logical or academic response. Emotional reactions do little to forward true exchange of ideas and information.

That is exactly what I am talking about, petty little nit picking. But nice to see you ramain true to form.

No "academic" response to Japans response to the ban on importing BFT?

And i'm guessing you are both ok with shark finning, whale and dolphin slaughters and the wildlife used in chinese medices?

Oceana, a Washington, D.C.-based group, found that as many as 73 million sharks are killed each year, primarily for their fins, with much of the trade going to China.

Wow, that's a lot of sharks!!! Oh well, I hope this doesn't also affect the he dolphin population worldwide...the over fishing.

cleo at 10:46 AM JST - 17th March Shark poachers kill the animal, cut off its fin, and throw away it's >carcass. They cut off the fin and throw the still-living shark back in the water >to die a slow, agonising death.

How do you know it's slow? Most injured/damaged sea creatures I've seen thrown into the ocean get consumed fairly quickly. And how do you know it's an "agonizing" death? Fish generally, especially primitive species, aren't believed to have pain receptors on a par with high animals. Did you have a mind-meld with a shark? Or were you one in a past life and you remember?

They (mainly chinese)should use shark meat as well , not just the fins. If chinese can turn silk worm into tasty food, why can't they do it to shark meat? If the answer is "its all about the cost involved ", I don't want to hear.

I am very much against the practice of "finning" sharks because it's really an unforgivably wasteful use of a marine resource. There are two kinds of sharks from a culinary perspective, ones where the amonia level can ruin the meat unless prepared quickly, such as the Blue shark and presumably Hammerheads. And those that don't have ab amonia problem, such as Mako, Thresher and Great White. Mako steaks can put some Swordfish steaks to shame tastewise. What amazes me is that even the very edible sharks seem to be getting tossed by those doing the finning. In Japan, even the not-so-great tasting Blue sharks are used in making Kamaboko and Hampen and other similar fishcake products. In a world where foos supplies are a concern to all the practice of finning has to stop.

Thanks, OssanAmerica. In Australia ,even abundant with all kinds of foods they still sell shark meat in fish markets at the price of the same level with other cheap fish. I sometimes buy some and cook like normal fish , not great but ok.

And i'm guessing you are both ok with shark finning, whale and dolphin slaughters and the wildlife used in chinese medices?

You are guessing very wrong, as a matter of fact. I am a long term vegetarian, very opposed to the use of rare animals for anything. I also think that people who are overly emotional, irrational, or rude, harm our cause.