YD Scuba Diving Forums banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Sort of member - perhaps, possibly, maybe
Joined
·
3,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I regret having to report this.

A certain amount of (strictly controlled) shark fishing is allowed in Australia, depending on the various State jurisdictions, and "shark finning" as it is done in many other parts of the world carries very heavy penalties regardless of State including in some cases (but not necessarily limited to) the confiscation of the whole boat and its equipment. Nevertheless this "article" is irresponsibility taken to the nth degree.

If you feel as strongly about this matter as I do perhaps you might like to post your own comments on the website.
 

·
Finless: You couldn't invent him...
Joined
·
23,946 Posts
Oh no, I hope this attitude doesn't spread. I'd miss my Friday night bottlenose chops, chips and blowhole rings.

Next you'll be telling me meerkat on toast shouldn't be allowed?

These oriental types that like shark fin must have never tried eating bacon?
 

·
YDs Most Southerly Monkey
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
Getting away from the outrage a bit; if they are using fin sourced from Australian caught sharks, a highly managed fishery with strict quotas and licencing, where the whole shark (apart from head and guts) must be landed, I actually think it's no bad thing. If it turns low value el cheapo Gummy or School Shark into something a lot more valuable and the price is reflected at market, you could actually see an increase in value of fish landed, which if managed properly could conceivably give the same $ value for less fish landed, so you can reduce the quota without destroying employment in the fishing industry. It could be viewed as an opportunity rather to better conserve biota, rather than a threat.

The problem here in Aus is that we undervalue our resources and rely on making lots of money by shifting huge volumes of cheap coal, iron ore, uranium, timber, wood chips, beef etc. If we could maybe exploit/sell less product but for more money, maybe we and our environment would be better off for it.
 

·
Finless: You couldn't invent him...
Joined
·
23,946 Posts
The problem here in Aus is that we undervalue our resources and rely on making lots of money by shifting huge volumes of cheap coal, iron ore, uranium, timber, wood chips, beef etc. If we could maybe exploit/sell less product but for more money, maybe we and our environment would be better off for it.
What would you propose charging for Sheilas?
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,429 Posts
Getting away from the outrage a bit; if they are using fin sourced from Australian caught sharks, a highly managed fishery with strict quotas and licencing, where the whole shark (apart from head and guts) must be landed, I actually think it's no bad thing.
You need to add in the criteria of coming from a sustainable stock, with stainable quotas. That's were the problem lies, the quotas tend to vastly exceed sustainable levels and tend to include stocks that are all ready threatened. 1044 species of shark in the world, 181 of those are listed as being threatened with a further 131 species heading in the same direction. In addition, whilst the rest of the shark is still used, it's really treated as a waste product, if it was not for the value of the fin, the shark would not be targetted at all.
 

·
Official Wax-Mistress
Joined
·
555 Posts
What would you propose charging for Sheilas?
:)
I believe we determined the going rate on this one a few weeks ago... ;) Although I guess the Australian equivalent of the MCS would be a more appropriate charity in this case!

And I agree, shame on the Adelaide paper for publishing this :( At least the backlash in comments should tell them they've made a mistake...
 

·
YDs Most Southerly Monkey
Joined
·
6,434 Posts
You need to add in the criteria of coming from a sustainable stock, with stainable quotas. That's were the problem lies, the quotas tend to vastly exceed sustainable levels and tend to include stocks that are all ready threatened. 1044 species of shark in the world, 181 of those are listed as being threatened with a further 131 species heading in the same direction. In addition, whilst the rest of the shark is still used, it's really treated as a waste product, if it was not for the value of the fin, the shark would not be targetted at all.
Yes but the Australian Shark Fishery is already highly managed, they aren't allowed to fin, they are required to land the whole fish and the money you'd make if you only sold the fins would make it uneconomic to even leave port. They can't catch anymore than they are doing now, even if they wanted to and the whole fish is already used, sold in f&c shops as "flake" and has been for decades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,429 Posts
Yes but the Australian Shark Fishery is already highly managed, they aren't allowed to fin, they are required to land the whole fish and the money you'd make if you only sold the fins would make it uneconomic to even leave port. They can't catch anymore than they are doing now, even if they wanted to and the whole fish is already used, sold in f&c shops as "flake" and has been for decades.
So what?The UK and European fisheries are also "highly managed" with strict quotas and licenses for shark fishing, and finning is also not allowed. However a large proportion of the annual catch is made up of blue and mako sharks, both vulnerable species. (In fairness, I've no idea what the Australian states allow, however I would be surprised if they have paid any attention to vulnerable stocks and populations)

The point I'm making is that fisheries management is useless, unless fisheries management takes on board the state of the species in question. As was shown recently at the CITES summit meeting, this just doesn't happen at the moment, environmental concerns are given over to commercial gain.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top