wild
places | wild happenings | wild
news
make a difference for our wild places
home | links | search the site
make a difference for our wild places
home | links | search the site
|
wild
places | wild happenings | wild
news
make a difference for our wild places home | links | search the site |
| all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews |
|
wild
news on wildsingapore
|
| Straits
Times Forum 11 Dec 06 Bird's nest, the viable alternative Letter from Oscar Lee Shing Kian Straits Times Forum 11 Dec 06 Discern the truth about save-the-sharks drive Letter from Wong Hoong Hooi Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 Save the sharks, forgo that bowl of fin soup Letter from Bernard Harrison Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 Eat shark's fin soup without feeling guilty? That's wrong message to send out Letter from Christopher von Mitschke-Collande Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 How long can we go on killing sharks before wiping them out totally? Letter from Grant W. Pereira Asian Educational Coordinator Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 Was the shark finned alive? When in doubt, skip the soup Letter from Louis Ng Kok Kwang Executive Director Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 S'pore can lead by example to ban shark's fin soup Letter from Masood Mohajer The Straits Times 1 Dec 06 Shark Finning: Shark's fin soup-eat without guilt By Giam Choo Hoo, For The Straits Times REPORTS which attribute shark decimation to the consumption of shark's fin soup show that Western activists have succeeded in convincing the public that sharks are killed for their fins only, and that all fins are cruelly cut off while the sharks are still alive. They paint a distorted picture. There is no reason to be ashamed when ordering the popular soup at a restaurant. Sharks are caught in virtually all parts of the world - by fishermen in poor countries and by large fishing fleets from developed countries. No state has banned shark fishing and only a few have set limits in certain areas. Indeed, some members of the European Union are catching, consuming and trading sharks on a big scale. The Shark Alliance points out that 'Spain, Portugal, the UK and France are among the world's top 20 shark-fishing nations that are responsible for 80 per cent of the global catch'. Despite the strongly declared objectives of the Fisheries Commission in Brussels, there are very few restrictions on fishing for sharks in European waters. The meat of dogfishes, smoothhounds, catsharks, skates and rays is in high demand by European consumers. The situation in Canada and the United States is similar: The blue shark is sought after as a sport fish while the porbeagle, mako and spiny dogfish are part of the commercial fishery. Other species are caught, either targeted or as by-catch that is unintentional or incidental, during fishing operations. It is a serious problem in most European countries. Fishing fleets targeting tuna and swordfish take substantial numbers of high-sea sharks . Nonetheless, sharks are not as endangered as other wildlife, for example, the sturgeon, which is sought after for caviar. There are over 400 species of sharks, and to claim they are on the verge of extinction is to make a sweeping but inaccurate generalisation equivalent to claiming that all birds are endangered. The UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora (CITES) lists only three sharks in its Appendix II. The consumption and trade of species in this category is subject to certification. The three are the basking shark, the great white shark and the whale shark. The remaining 397 shark species are not classified at all and can be freely traded and caught. Fins are by-products of the fishing industry. Though they are valuable, sharks are not normally killed for their fins. A fishing fleet specialising in catching sharks only for their fins would quickly go out of business. The perception that it is common practice to kill sharks for only their fins - and to cut them off whilst the sharks are still alive - is wrong. No one denies that such cruelty exists. The footage of 'live-finning' has been shown all over the world. However, these sensational pictures obscure the fact that many within the industry are against such practices. The vast majority of fins in the market are taken from sharks after their death. This is the preliminary finding of a review made with the assistance of shark experts, fishermen, captains of big fishing ships and representatives of fishery departments, the fishing industry, fish markets and fishing ports. The barbaric practice of 'live-finning' is done by some long-line fishing boats, principally targeting tuna. When they get the less valuable sharks in their hooks, they cut the fins and throw the sharks into the water to make room for tuna. This deplorable practice is outlawed in many countries. The anti-fin group has misrepresented the facts. By aggressively flooding print, TV and Internet media with selective images, they have portrayed an untruth: that all fins are derived from 'live-finning'. Their aim? They want shark's fin soup to be shunned. The truth is this: Sharks will continue to be caught and killed on a wide scale by the more organised and sophisticated fishing nations. Targeting shark's fin soup will not stop this accidental catch. The fins from these catches will be thrown away or turned into animal feed and fertilisers if shark's fin soup is shunned. The practice to salvage and sell the sharks' fins gives value to discards from the fishing industry of the world, benefiting both poor and rich countries . I am not an advocate for greater consumption of shark's fin soup. I am saying that it is not a shameful culture. The writer is a member of the Cites Animals Committee and a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, England. Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 Save the sharks, forgo that bowl of fin soup Letter from Bernard Harrison I READ the article by Dr Giam Choo Hoo, 'Shark's fin soup - eat without guilt' (ST, Dec 1), with interest and concern. Dr Giam's point is that foreign NGOs have been trying to dissuade us Chinese from eating one of our traditional dishes. He feels we should not consider eating shark's fin soup a shameful culture. Dr Giam also states that only three sharks out of over 400 species are listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Cites)'s Appendix 2, thus implying that sharks are not endangered. It is well known within conservation circles that Cites is not a particularly good barometer of the level of endangerment of a species. For instance, its Appendix 1 lists 228 species of mammals and only nine species of fish. Rather than a reflection of endangerment, it shows ignorance of what is going on in the oceans, mangroves and fresh-water bodies. A more useful basis of assessment is the World Conservation Union, which in 2004 assessed a total of 262 sharks and related species. Of these, 56 were classified as globally threatened, that is, critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. A further 26 were assessed as threatened on a regional basis. When the term 'critically endangered' is used, one of several criteria involved in the classification is that the estimated population size is fewer than 250 mature individuals. Similarly, 'endangered' is used when the population size is estimated to be fewer than 2,500 mature individuals. By 2017, 20 species of sharks could become extinct. More than 100 million sharks are taken from the seas each year. For a group that has been around for the past 400 million years, sharks cannot survive this onslaught because most large sharks reach sexual maturity only at seven years, and then give birth to only a few pups each year. Research on the potential effects of the disappearance of sharks from selected ecosystems suggests that the consequences could be devastating for commercially and nutritionally important fishes. In the Hawaiian Reefs model, the removal of tiger sharks resulted in a crash in populations of tuna and jacks, due to a marked increase in seabirds, the shark's primary prey. In Chinese banquets, over 40 per cent of the meal cost comes from shark's fin soup. The challenge is to find restaurateurs who would take on the responsibility of saving sharks by sourcing an alternative dish which still allows them to sustain banquet profits. With China's 1.2 billion people gaining in affluence and holding to the tradition of shark's fin soup at celebrations, I don't give the 453 remaining species of sharks much of a chance. Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 Eat shark's fin soup without feeling guilty? That's wrong message to send out Letter from Christopher von Mitschke-Collande Dr Giam Choo Hoo is sending the wrong message when he suggests that one can eat shark's fin soup without feeling guilty (ST, Dec 1). Dr Giam, who is a member of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species' Animals Committee, unfortunately omits some facts from the CITES meeting in July in Peru on the conservation and management of sharks. See 'Trade-related threats to sharks' report (http://www.cites.org/eng/com/ac/22/E22-17-3.pdf). Over 25% of all chondrichthyan species evaluated for the IUCN Red List of threatened species have been assessed as threatened (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable), 25% as least concern and nearly 37% as data deficient. It appears to be a bit more than the three types of sharks mentioned by Dr Giam. Illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fisheries in state waters and on the high seas contribute to these species' decline and the broader ecosystem impact. Dr Giam does not mention this. He leaves the impression that all fisheries are regulated, legal and monitored. The CITES report emphasizes the impact of shark population decline due to IUU fisheries and the challenge many states have to monitor their regulations. Fins are nearly always retained, but meat is not. The average economic value of shark fins vastly exceeds that of shark meat, and the number of sharks entering the fin trade is likely to exceed the number whose meat is traded. Dr Giam suggests that fins are by-products of the fishing industry, and he ignores the point that 'meat is a by-product of some shark fisheries that are primarily driven by the high value of fins in international trade, predominantly in Asian countries where shark's fin soup is a delicacy'. Some 60 countries have banned finning since 2004. The CITES report states that insufficient knowledge of the impact of international trade on shark populations rather than its consumption contributes to the overall mortality of the sharks. The fact is that the shark population is in dangerous decline and the demand for shark fins is rising sharply. Fishing is the single greatest threat to its population. Monitoring the fishing is poor or non-existent in many parts of the world. Sharks play a vital role in a healthy eco-system, and just because Western countries fish a lot of them does not make it right to consume them as soup. I wish Dr Giam had balanced his one-sided article by addressing the issues associated with the dwindling shark population. Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 How long can we go on killing sharks before wiping them out totally? Letter from Grant W. Pereira Asian Educational Coordinator Sea Shepherd Conservation Society I refer to Dr Giam's Choo Hoo's article entitled "Shark's fin soup - eat without guilt" (ST, Dec 1). The logic that since many species of sharks are not endangered and therefore can be eaten is slanted and short sighted. About 100 million sharks are killed each year. How long can this go on? Or do we wait till they are put on the endangered list before making a futile attempt to save them? Poor countries do not benefit from the shark's fin trade. In fact their standard of living decline as bigger and faster boats deplete their coastal waters and deprive them of a vital source of protein. Why did Dr Giam exclude the Taiwanese commercial fleet? As a member of the Animals Committee of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, Dr Giam's time could perhaps be better spent to prevent the import of the endangered whale shark for our proposed integrated resorts. Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 Was the shark finned alive? When in doubt, skip the soup Letter from Louis Ng Kok Kwang Executive Director Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) I refer to the article 'Shark finning: Shark's fin soup - eat without guilt' (ST, Dec 1). The Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) is pleased that the practice of 'live-finning' has been outlawed in many countries. However, as Dr Giam Choo Hoo rightly pointed out, this practice still exists. The reality remains that the consumer does not know if the shark's fin soup he or she is eating is from a shark which was finned alive. The issue, however, is not limited only to the ways the sharks are killed, but also to whether the trade is sustainable and whether it is detrimental to the survival of the shark species. As Dr Giam stated, sharks are caught in virtually all parts of the world and some members of the European Union are catching, consuming and trading sharks on a big scale. He further added that sharks will continue to be caught and killed on a wide scale by the more organised and sophisticated fishing nations. There is no doubt that there is tremendous hunting pressure on sharks. The real issue is the impact of this pressure on shark populations. While it is true that we cannot definitely say all sharks are endangered, it is also true that we cannot be sure they are not. The reality is that there is insufficient scientific data on the number of sharks left in the world today. A high proportion of the species of sharks is listed as data deficient in the "Red List" of threatened biodiversity compiled by the World Conservation Union. There is no doubt that there are uncertainties with regard to the current conservation status of sharks. As such, the precautionary principle should be applied in this case. The opening paragraph of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora's 'Strategic Vision through 2005' calls for attention to the importance of the precautionary principle as the ultimate safeguard when there is scientific uncertainty about whether trade is sustainable. Furthermore, a 2006 paper published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, a British journal, indicated that sharks could be more vulnerable to the fishing industry than was previously thought. Marine scientists, led by Aberdeen University, warned that their findings indicated that all shark populations are within reach of human fisheries and could be at greater risk than was previously thought. Furthermore, the fact that many shark species are very slow-growing, which means that a sudden drop in numbers can threaten their survival, hinders their survival chances as well. Sharks play a vital role in the oceans. As keystone species, the survival of the ecosystem relies heavily on them. The question is whether we have to eat shark's fin soup when there is a chance that the fin in your soup may belong to one of the last sharks on earth. Shark's fin soup is not an essential part of our diet and the fins are tasteless. Several alternatives are now available and we urge Singaporeans to consider them. All of us have the ability to relate to other living things with compassion. We can choose to be kind instead of being cruel. We can make cruelty-free choices that will not only benefit ourselves but also benefit the environment and the animals we share this world with. Straits Times Forum 6 Dec 06 S'pore can lead by example to ban shark's fin soup Letter from Masood Mohajer Singapore is widely regarded in the region and beyond as a beacon of modernity, stability and a shining example of good governance. It encourages its citizens to be aware of their responsibilities to the environment, such as its recycling initiatives and the manner in which the National Parks Board maintains and upkeeps our beautiful city. Our trees, plants and flowers are some of the best maintained on the planet. As one of the most developed countries in Asia, it has a responsibility to ensure that our cultural tastes do not cause environmental havoc, such as endangering the shark population. There is no reason to continue the habit of eating shark's fin soup, which comes from the merciless execution of these magnificent species. In its bid to attract foreign talent, Singapore spares no effort at promoting itself. It should be pointed out that the very foreign talent we are trying to attract are the people who are environmentally-conscious. If we as a country do not take the initiative and ban the import and consumption of shark's fin, we will be regarded as a nation which is not different from the people who hunt tigers for their paws, keep bears in cages for the bile and hunt elephants for their tusks. We should not camouflage the truth behind statistics. We should instead show our neighbours that despite our cultural tastes, we are sensitive to the environment and are taking steps to counter the extinction of the shark population. Straits Times Forum 11 Dec 06 Discern the truth about save-the-sharks drive Letter from Wong Hoong Hooi I REFER to Dr Giam Choo Hoo's article, 'Shark's fin soup - eat without guilt' (ST, Dec 1). Dr Giam shared the abhorrence over finning and it matters little, as some have already pointed out, how many shark species are actually endangered. The most interesting point raised in his article is that commercial fishing, said to be responsible for the depletion of shark populations, has not been demonstrated to be mostly motivated by the demand for shark's fins. Those respondents who have acknowledged the deficiency in data have effectively conceded that they have no basis for blaming the shark's fin trade for lower shark populations. Some of the biggest catchers of sharks, as Dr Giam revealed, are based in Western countries with no culture of consumption of shark's fins. If that does not make consuming shark's fin right, where, on the other hand, is the same level of ire that should be directed at these countries? Ultimately, what puts me off about the campaign against shark's-fin soup has nothing to do with bedrock traditionalism or differing interpretations of humanitarianism. It is the smug selectivism of those quarters where the campaign finds its loudest support. Alcohol consumption, as a comparison, continues to wreck lives through accidents and disease. However, it is an indispensable part of the pubbing/clubbing culture from the West, mimicked by thousands here. Thus, we do not hear shrill calls for the banning of alcohol consumption or for its substitution with soda pop. However, shark's fin soup, is 'cheena' to the Westernised, hip crowd. The very selective highlighting of the horrors of finning (some 600,000 dead Iraqis seem to matter less) embarrasses them before their Western political and cultural mentors. The United States failed to endorse an important international environmental protocol but that did not draw the same level of angst directed at shark's fin soup. Save the sharks by all means but recognise what is real and fake about the support for this campaign. Straits Times Forum 11 Dec 06 Bird's nest, the viable alternative Letter from Oscar Lee Shing Kian MY EFFORTS to educate and advise my friends to stop consuming shark's fin have been futile. There are two main reasons for this: Despite shark's fin being nothing more than collagen and is tasteless in itself, it is regarded as an expensive dish. Hence, it is seen as important to include shark's fin in the menu for a proper banquet so as not to be appear stingy towards your guests. Most standard Chinese banquet menus include an item of shark's fin. As Mr Bernard Harrison noted, 'Save the sharks, forgo that bowl of fin soup' (ST, Dec 6), it comprises 40 per cent of the cost of the meal. Most restaurants also do not offer viable alternatives. In fact, I was unable to take the shark's fin option out of my own wedding dinner because my family believed that shark's fin was expected and there would be a 'loss of face' not to serve it. If we are to start consuming less shark's fin, then the Restaurant Association of Singapore and the Singapore Chefs Association must take the lead by offering environmentally friendly alternatives in their menus that are comparable to shark's fin in terms of prestige and perceived value. I attended a wedding at the Regent Hotel recently, and the menu included bird's nest instead of shark's fin which was a welcome surprise to me. Bird's nest, I believe has greater nutritional value and no less valued than shark's fin. Hopefully, the representative bodies of restaurants and chefs in Singapore can take the lead and create new dishes to replace shark's fin in banquets and make our small contribution to the conservation of the shark species. I am sure, as we become more environmentally aware, we would welcome and endorse ethical choices in our menus. links blog posts about the article Where's the Tasmanian Tiger? on the last shark blog Shark's Fin Soup on the moment in time blog "I feel much better now the next time I tuck into a bowl of shark's fin soup." From Tony Wu's blog "The author, Dr. Giam Choo Hoo is well known in conservation circles as a proponent of wildlife consumption." Tony Wu also posted his own thoughts on this issue. This article also discussed on the fins forum. Related articles on Shark's fins |
| News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes. | |
website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com |