(MY) letters on sharks finning and monkey export from Malaysia

[Guest guest]

2007/08/20 - All letters from New Straits Times

 

Shark's fin soup: Campaign lacks strong bite

By : CHEAH HOOI GIAM, Penang

 

RECENT campaigns asking the public not to consume shark's fin soup is

based on cultural and personal prejudices.

 

The anti-shark's fin soup campaign is launched based on two premises:

 

• That shark's fin soup is the main cause of the declining numbers of

sharks; and,

 

• That harvesting shark's fin by " live finning " is cruel.

 

The campaign ignores the fact that 20 countries take up 80 per cent of

the world's annual harvest of sharks (Britain, Spain, the United

States and many European countries being among the top).

 

Most sharks are harvested for their meat but often as a by-catch in

pelagic fisheries. Shark meat and oil are valuable commodities

commonly consumed in many countries.

 

In fact, the Porbeagle shark and the Spiny dogfish, said to be

endangered, have been fished by generations of fishermen in temperate

waters (the UK and the US) and it is this over-harvesting that is

causing their decline.

 

The meat from these sharks is prized in fish and chips shops. It is

more appropriate for anti-shark's fins campaigners to take their

campaigns to the consumers of fish and chips.

 

Further, contrary to popular belief, shark cartilage is not harvested

solely for shark's fin soup. In fact, shark cartilage is used

extensively, especially in North America, as an anti-cancer

supplement.

 

A glance in the Internet shows thousands of sites selling shark

cartilage supplement. The anti-fins campaign also regularly shows

" shocking " film footage of " live finning " of sharks. " Live fin-ning "

refers to the alleged removal of only the fins and throwing the

carcass back into the sea.

 

In reality, live finning is not the norm. But, media image of this has

been shown around the world to " shock and awe " people. However, even

if live finning is practised, it is laughable if not hypocritical to

suggest that this is a cruel way to harvest sharks. What animal

species that humans consume does not involve bleeding that animal to

death?

 

The fact that sharks breed slowly is not in dispute. The fact that

they may be endangered due to over-harvesting is also not in dispute.

But, to target shark's fin soup as their cause of decline is to ignore

the facts.

 

--\

---------------

2007/08/24

 

Sharks & Appetites: It's the Huss on English plate

By : NICK RALPH, Penang

 

AS an English tourist visiting Penang, I feel I must disagree with

what Cheah Hooi Giam says when he links our fish and chips with a

decline in the shark population, which is being depleted for the sale

of shark's fin soup.

 

The fish he probably is referring to is the " Huss " or " Dog Fish " . This

is not an endangered species. It is only a cousin of the shark family

and grows to no more than one-metre long.

 

--\

---------------------

2007/08/24

 

Sharks & Appetites: Compelling reasons for a ban

By : AHMAD ALI,Co-Regional vice-chair,IUCN Shark Specialist Group

Southeast Asia Region

 

I REFER to the comments by Cheah Hooi Giam of Penang ( " Campaign lacks

strong bite " — NST, Aug 20) on the issue of shark's fin soup and shark

finning.

 

The IUCN Shark Specialist Group considers that shark finning (the

removal and retention of shark fins and the discard at sea of the rest

of the carcass) threatens many shark stocks, the stability of marine

ecosystems, sustainable traditional fisheries, food security and

socio-economically important recreational fisheries.

 

It is, therefore, contrary to the principles of the United Nations-FAO

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Article 7.2.2 (g) and to

the guiding principles, objective and aims of the UN-FAO International

Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA-Sharks).

 

Trade and landings data indicate that finning activity is widespread,

largely unmanaged and unmonitored. Because of the biological

characteristics of sharks, it also leads to unsustainable levels of

mortality.

 

Finning and discarding of shark carcasses is wasteful of protein and

other potential products derived from sharks (it utilises only two to

five per cent of the shark). This wastage prevents socio-economic

benefits from accruing when other shark products are processed on

shore and is a threat to food security (the latter particularly when

undertaken by distant fleets in the waters of developing countries).

 

Finning causes the death of millions of sharks. This potentially

threatens the survival of rare and vulnerable species and, by removing

large numbers of top predators from the oceanic ecosystem, may have

dramatic and undesirable ecological impacts that could potentially

threaten yields of other commercial species.

 

Finning impedes the collection of the species-specific scientific data

that are essential for monitoring catches and landings and

implementing sustainable shark fisheries management (as required under

international agreements and statutes).

 

We consider, therefore, that a ban on shark finning is justified

throughout the world's oceans and high seas.

 

We also urge states that take sharks in target or bycatch fisheries to

implement fully the UN-FAO IPOA-Sharks by developing national and

regional plans of action that incorporate the guiding principles of a

precautionary approach and recognise the nutritional and

socio-economic importance of shark catches in some regions, and

minimise waste and discards from shark catches and promote their use

through, inter alia, implementing finning bans.

 

Such bans should require sharks to be landed with fins attached. Or,

if this is not possible, all parts should be landed together at a

ratio that should not exceed five per cent of fin to dressed carcass

weight.

--\

--------------

 

2007/08/24

 

Exporting Macaques: We can do without this sort of monkey business

By : DR P. VANAJA for Petpositive

 

 

THE Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled & Elderly

Association (Petpositive) is alarmed by the decision recently to lift

the 23-year-old ban on the capture and export of long-tailed macaques

as a means to reduce the monkey population in urban areas in Malaysia.

 

Macaques have been successfully domesticated over the years so much so

they are a popular attraction in some tourist spots as well as in

certain rural areas where farmers have " employed " them to harvest

fruit and pick up vegetables.

 

Here are further reasons why the prohibition ban on monkey trade ought

to be reinforced immediately:

 

The authorities — especially those on wildlife — should be doing all

they can to protect our biodiversity, not make it easier for

unscrupulous traders to use the hapless monkeys for exotic food

purposes or lab research.

 

They should not be creating opportunities for illegal licensing for

hunting, export and other purposes.

 

Otherwise, Malaysia could be mistakenly seen not only as encouraging

the proliferation of illegal traders in exotic wildlife but also

condoning animal testing in foreign laboratories.

 

How is it possible to target urban monkeys from forest primates? How

is one able to tell the difference?

 

Lifting the ban on the basis of isolated cases of so-called monkey

attacks is unacceptable as we all know that primates are not

aggressive animals by nature.