Well, at least they used the whole critter instead of just chopping off the fins and letting the rest rot in the ocean. File comment under "damning with faint praise."
-- Steve saw Sharkwater on the weekend, co-inky-dinkily enough. Good flick, but it makes Michael Moore's stuff look impartial by comparison.
Am I the only one to think that they're going to start hunting whale sharks as a substitute for whaling? Very sad given how slowly these guys reproduce.
Holy crap. That is a gigantic steak. I have nothing useful to say (save that I am in no way saddened by the death of the fish as many of your readers seem to be. As long as they eat it, I can't say it bugs me in the least).
Mostly, I'm just impressed that they can cut it, especially considering the tool they're using.
Whale sharks are placid, endangered and take more than 30 years to reach sexual maturity so they reproduce very slowly ... which makes them prime candidates to be hunted into extinction.
To me if you're going to eat fish (which I do), eat stuff that can sustain fishing ... whale sharks probably can't.
unfortunately, not much in the waters CAN sustain us anymore. we didn't manage the way we fished the waters in the past, so we are no longer fishing sustainably.. And when we fish one fish sustainably, we end up catching other species that would not be caught at the same sustainable rate as the first fish... it's all entirely fucked up.. we just learned this in ecology, it's pretty depressing...
I agree, sustainability is important. I didn't see any indication in the article that they are hunting these em masse, but I could be wrong. if they are overhunting then that's a problem as it is with any resource. So I do hope some planning went into it.
None at all, and I'm at a complete loss as to why the article said nothing about it. The whale shark fishery in Asia is a scandal. Under the law in most Asian countries, hunting whale shark is unregulated; in China it was recently allowed to be expanded, and the national market for whale shark meat has exploded. If current conditions continue, the whale shark is doomed in Asian waters (i.e. most of its habitat).
Of course it is illegal under CITES to trade internationally in whale shark, but Chinese fishing boats fishing for the Chinese market alone will be quite enough to wipe them out.
Heartily suggest Tilipia, Carp and other similar vegetarian/filter feeder fish. The former clean up environmental messes via agricultural runoff and the latter are ecosystem pests in many systems.
(Also a lot cheaper the the carnivorous fish such as Salmon or Cod.)
That is the best kind of shark harvest i have seen in a long while. Not vindictive, not wasteful and not based on specific body parts. Not butchering sharks for teeth or fins or specific organs on the black market but instead using it to _feed_ people and increasing the local fish catches in the process.
Trust me, i am a biologist specifically dealing with ecosystem management and conservation biology. It is easy for the well fed to claim that others shouldn't eat a foodstuff, but people who _don't_ have such a reliable supply of food/protein are often in less ideal conditions.
It isn't a good thing that the shark was harvested but it could have been a lot worse and helped a lot fewer people.
I hope you'll permit those of us who've also informed ourselves about the issue to disagree. Whale Shark is a CITES appendix-II animal. The whale shark market in China is national in scale and almost completely unregulated - and it is growing rapidly. Unfortunately the whale shark fishery is not really a case of indigenous coastal fishing peoples plying their ancient trade, but a fish that will appear on restaurants and tables throughout the country - as it will in India and a host of other countries. Yes, they'll eat most of it as opposed to merely taking the fin, but the fish is still being caught in a grossly unsustainable manner in the east Pacific and Indian oceans. If the preservation of species means anything at all, this practice can't go on.
Well, of course, it won't, one way or another - either more robust rules will be made or the fish will vanish.
*nods* Fair enough, i do agree with you on all fronts. It also appears that i mis-read the article which i had thought was of the "Local fisherman caught something amazing to feed the community" rather then "Wow, isn't it neat that Chinese restaurants can serve you some of this tasty tasty endangered shark."
I will add that my comment was in good bit cynical; claiming an ethnic cleansing to be the most humane genocide i have seen in no way decreases the horror of it being genocide.
You know what, I think I'm going to have to take a really different stance on this situation than most of the people posting here. The general consensus feels that this is wrong and horrible and so forth, however I'd like to point out what's been pointed out in a comment to the main article, that there's an awful lot of hypocrisy going on here. How many people are from a nation that can say that they've mastered the art of living with his/her fellow human, let alone the creatures of the deep?? I hate the drag the war in Iraq into this, but I really think it applies. How many human lives were wasted SENSLESSLY in this war?? How many more have yet to die before this war is over, (no, I'm not just bashing the American's. EVERY nation on earth has blood on its hands) and yet these people are quick on the draw to tell OTHERS that what they're doing is wrong?? I mean, forgetting that there's no such thing as a universal right or wrong, and that concepts of right and wrong a PURELY subjective, AND that the philosophy expressed here is very western-centric and the sentiment might not be shared in other parts of the world. But forgetting all that, how can one stand up and label one thing as being blatantly wrong, while turn a blind eye or a def ear to other atrocities??
Consider European fishing of the past couple centuries. We did a pretty good job of this VERY SAMN THING. I also refuse to allow an argument such as "we were naïve then. We know better know." WRONG! We have a better sense of SCOPE now than we did then. The only thing that's changed is our abilities to count these animals. PLUS, is modern fishing so much better?? What happens when an endangered species gets caught in a net and dies while we're fishing for other things??
I’m pretty sure that I’m going to take a lot of flack for this post, however I think people should be a little more self-conscience and consider the blood marring ones own image before they take up arms against someone else, and criticize their ways of doing things. After all, it’s like what many have pointed out; killing an animal for food isn’t something unique to humans. I don’t think that the animal kingdom would have any reservations about killing one of these and eating it simply because it was endangered. At least they seem to be eating the entire thing, which keeps perfectly with the natural order.
As a closer, could it also be interpreted that the fact that this particular item is considered “news” as testament to the frequency of this occurrence?? It wouldn’t be news if it happened every day. (I don’t know how often these are killed. I’m merely speculating.)
I wondered when I saw it whether it was "news", but decided that it was just the best picture that a journo had seen.
In a balanced environment animals have to kill each other to keep numbers balanced. This is not a balanced environment, and it IS our business to not make it worse. That's why things get classed as endangered. If we let willynilly creatures (and plants) die off, eventually something we need to survive will die out.
Caring about such things doesn't mean we don't care about humans and poverty and war and such.
The only thing that's news is that most whale sharks are smaller examples of the breed. IOW, this isn't "Fisherman catches a cod" news, but "fisherman catches a record-setting giant cod!".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
'Scuse the lingo please.
Date: 2007-03-27 03:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 03:54 pm (UTC)-- Steve saw Sharkwater on the weekend, co-inky-dinkily enough. Good flick, but it makes Michael Moore's stuff look impartial by comparison.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 03:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 05:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 04:50 pm (UTC)Mostly, I'm just impressed that they can cut it, especially considering the tool they're using.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 05:16 pm (UTC)To me if you're going to eat fish (which I do), eat stuff that can sustain fishing ... whale sharks probably can't.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 05:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 05:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 08:39 pm (UTC)Of course it is illegal under CITES to trade internationally in whale shark, but Chinese fishing boats fishing for the Chinese market alone will be quite enough to wipe them out.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 06:05 pm (UTC)(Also a lot cheaper the the carnivorous fish such as Salmon or Cod.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 06:01 pm (UTC)Trust me, i am a biologist specifically dealing with ecosystem management and conservation biology. It is easy for the well fed to claim that others shouldn't eat a foodstuff, but people who _don't_ have such a reliable supply of food/protein are often in less ideal conditions.
It isn't a good thing that the shark was harvested but it could have been a lot worse and helped a lot fewer people.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 08:47 pm (UTC)Well, of course, it won't, one way or another - either more robust rules will be made or the fish will vanish.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 08:55 pm (UTC)I will add that my comment was in good bit cynical; claiming an ethnic cleansing to be the most humane genocide i have seen in no way decreases the horror of it being genocide.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-28 02:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-28 04:16 am (UTC)Consider European fishing of the past couple centuries. We did a pretty good job of this VERY SAMN THING. I also refuse to allow an argument such as "we were naïve then. We know better know." WRONG! We have a better sense of SCOPE now than we did then. The only thing that's changed is our abilities to count these animals. PLUS, is modern fishing so much better?? What happens when an endangered species gets caught in a net and dies while we're fishing for other things??
I’m pretty sure that I’m going to take a lot of flack for this post, however I think people should be a little more self-conscience and consider the blood marring ones own image before they take up arms against someone else, and criticize their ways of doing things. After all, it’s like what many have pointed out; killing an animal for food isn’t something unique to humans. I don’t think that the animal kingdom would have any reservations about killing one of these and eating it simply because it was endangered. At least they seem to be eating the entire thing, which keeps perfectly with the natural order.
As a closer, could it also be interpreted that the fact that this particular item is considered “news” as testament to the frequency of this occurrence?? It wouldn’t be news if it happened every day. (I don’t know how often these are killed. I’m merely speculating.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-29 03:01 am (UTC)In a balanced environment animals have to kill each other to keep numbers balanced. This is not a balanced environment, and it IS our business to not make it worse. That's why things get classed as endangered. If we let willynilly creatures (and plants) die off, eventually something we need to survive will die out.
Caring about such things doesn't mean we don't care about humans and poverty and war and such.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-29 01:22 pm (UTC)