High-res photo collages can be downloaded at Shark Fin Photo Mob
Hearing for California shark fin bill, AB 376, is set for 8/25 at the Senate Appropriations Committee. Please call your state senator (www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html) and urge YES vote on AB 376 (calling is much more effective). Then call the members of the Senate Appropriation Committee. In addition, if you have time, send an email to reenforce your call.
Christine Kehoe (Chair) (916) 651-4039 senator.kehoe@sen.ca.gov
Mimi Walters (Vice Chair) (916) 651-4033 senator.walters@sen.ca.gov
Elaine Alquist (916) 651-4013 senator.alquist@sen.ca.gov
Bill Emmerson (916) 651-4037 senator.emmerson@sen.ca.gov
Ted W. Lieu (916) 651-4028 senator.lieu@sen.ca.gov
Fran Pavley (916) 651-4023 senator.pavley@sen.ca.gov
Curren Price (916) 651-4026 senator.price@sen.ca.gov
Sharon Runner (916) 651-4017 senator.runner@sen.ca.gov
Darrell Steinberg (916) 651-4006 senator.steinberg@sen.ca.gov
It's a quick call e.g. "I'm ___, I'm Chinese American and a California resident, and I would like to urge Senator ___ to vote YES on AB 376 without amendments."
Thank you!
It is NOT discriminatory to ban shark fin and not other shark products or all shark fishing, because the demand for shark fin is by far the largest cause for the killing of sharks (NOAA "2010 Shark Finning Report to Congress", pages 21-23 *).
The only way to end illegal shark-finning is to ban shark fin:
1. We can't prevent the importation of fins from illegally-finned sharks due to international trade laws. This means that we can't prevent illegal fins from entering the country. It is very difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal fins. Thus the only way to stop illegal fins from entering the market is to ban all fins, both legal and illegal.
2. Illegal shark fins are very difficult and expensive to distinguish from legal ones. Using legal trade to cover illegal activity is a very common method. Say I'm a restaurant owner and I buy 'legal' shark fins, and at the same time I slip in illegal shark fins, to make shark fin soup for my customers. To get away with this, when the inspector comes, all I have to do is to show her/him my receipts for the 'legal' fins I had purchased, which I update daily to approximately match the weight of the illegal fins. I'm sure people can think of other ways...
People are ingenious at finding ways to get around rules to profit off of shark fins. As another example, after the sale of foie gras was banned in Chicago, restaurants gave away foie gras for free to customers who bought an expensive salad, to get around the "no-selling" rule.
3. There is no way to track the chain of custody of individual shark fins without exorbitant cost and without inviting laundering and fraud. The state has no money to cover the cost. A label/receipt/form is not a real option, because these types of documents do not accurately track chain of custody (especially for high-priced luxury items like shark fin or elephant ivory) and they are subject to massive fraud. Such schemes have been tried and failed disastrously to protect species.
If someone disagrees that it's impossible to end illegal shark-finning without banning shark fin, please provide a counter-example of a scheme that would work. Show how such a scheme would be enforced, and how it would deal with imported, illegally tagged fins.
* The NOAA "2010 Shark Finning Report to Congress", in pages 21-23, dramatically demonstrates the great demand for fins. NOAA reports that in 1999 the majority of sharks landed in Hawaii were finned sharks (2870 metric tons). In 2000, a half-year finning ban reduced the amount of shark weight landed in Hawaii to about half (1450 mt). A full-year ban in years 2001 and beyond (150, 180, etc. mt) reduced the shark weight landed to about 1 / 20th of the 1999 rate. The striking feature is that the numbers are by weight, so the number of sharks fished decreased by much more. It is commonly assumed that the fins weigh no more than five percent of the total shark weight (page 2), so the number of sharks fished reduced to as little as 1 / 400th of the 1999 values with the enactment of the shark finning ban.
> We all oppose shark fining, but who can provide ANY evidence to link the crime of shark fining and our current supply in California ?
Shark fins bought in San Francisco were brought to the California Academy of Sciences to have their DNA sequenced. Of the 19 samples that were successfully sequenced were 14 species including sharks that inhabit California waters. Over half are listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN and one was a species threatened with endangerment. The latter was the prepared noodle and completely unrecognizable. Others were from species that live in the Indian and Atlantic oceans as well as the Pacific Ocean. This is an international trade affecting sharks worldwide. DNA analysis is a time intensive, costly and laborious process and cannot be used on a large scale to screen sharks.
> Some blame Senator Ted Lieu for playing the race card, but who can explain why AB376 only ban shark fin, not ban the shark fishing and use other 95% of shark.
1. Illegal vs. legal shark fishing
The intention of the shark fin bill is to target illegal shark fishing. Shark-fins are so much more valuable than any other part of the shark that it causes the large-scale indiscriminate illegal killing of sharks even if endangered and certainly not within quota.
2. Shark fin is the most valuable part of the shark and contributes most to shark endangerment
The vast majority sharks are targeted for their fins and the rest of the shark is discarded. Shark products, e.g. shark meat, have very low demand [http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/the-great-shark-slaughter/Content?oid=2519696]:
'"Fins are by far the most valuable part of the shark. Low prices or non-existent markets for shark meat discourage further retention." Indeed, shark meat exported from the United States goes for only $1 a pound — fifty times less than shark fin. ... In fact, Costco — contrary to Yee's claim — stopped carrying shark meat years ago because of lack of demand, according to the chain's US seafood buyer. ... Fins, by contrast, are highly valuable, and because they can be air-dried on the ship's rigging and stored compactly, they're essentially free money.'
3. Because of (2), ending the demand for shark fin will address the problem most efficiently.
Sharks are in trouble and banning all shark fishing may not be a bad idea. However, that's a much larger endeavor. As sharks are most often killed for their fins, ending that demand will save many more sharks than almost any other effort. This is something that can be done NOW.
As an analogy, consider recycling efforts. Does it make sense to hold back a entire recycling program until you have have perfected a wastestream management in place for every single item? No. Start where you can, and with an effort that you think will make a difference. In fact, whether it's with newspaper, glass, cans, or PET (1) containers, all municipalities involved in recycling start somewhere, and then later add on.
Excellent Q&A's on the shark fin bill:
To ban or not to ban
Four facts about AB 376
Sample letters: COARE, Sea Stewards
0 comments:
Post a Comment