ewurm;2144748; said:
what about Tuna? and Dolphin? and swordfish and all the other commercially harvested fish?
Shark Fin Soup
- Thread starter Bottomfeeder
- Start date
- Status
what about Tuna? and Dolphin? and swordfish and all the other commercially harvested fish?
ppl keep fighting you on this but I think the only point you are trying to make is how with the other animals we eat other than maybe just a few,its the cutting off the fins then throwing the still live shark back into the water with no swimming power to defend itself against all the other animals.Obviously its just going to die a undeserved crappy death.I too think it sucks.Whenever they take them,if they took and used the entire shark then it would not be as big of a deal.I love sharks too and like the taste of the steaks but dont like tossing them back in fin less and helpless like you say.
nativelover;2145420; said:
Haven't seen canned dolphin in the supermarket lately, but tuna certainly aren't anywhere near as endangered as sharks. And with tuna at least the fish is caught and the majority of the meat used, not just a small piece cut off and the rest of the animal wasted...
I'm not judging anyone, just expressing my thoughts/opinions, it just seems really strange to me that fish-people would support something like eating shark fin soup, which IMO is right up there with whaling on the "who's raping and pillaging the oceans" list...
Again the point they are trying to bring is that the shark is finned and thrown back into the wild to die. Commercial harvested fish are killed/froze to death or whatever method the boat uses and pretty much the entire thing is eaten. They dont cut the tail off a tuna and throw it back - thats the difference. That goes for any animal, kill it humanely and make use of the ENTIRE animal. If they commerically harvested fish and cut the tail off, kept the tail and threw it back - then that would be an issue. If they would take the shark, kill it humanely bring the ENTIRE thing back to shrore and make use of the entire thing
(which then you have to look up endangered/threatned shark species etc.) - then that is one thing, but to fin it and then throw it back to die slowly and painfully is the problem.
The reason it's not supported just like whaling, is the ethics behind it, but more importantly the effects it will have on the marine life in the ocean. Remeber the shark is a keystone predator and keeps many marine life in checks and balances. If you remove it you destroy the marine ecosystem which is why it's such a big deal.
(which then you have to look up endangered/threatned shark species etc.) - then that is one thing, but to fin it and then throw it back to die slowly and painfully is the problem.
The reason it's not supported just like whaling, is the ethics behind it, but more importantly the effects it will have on the marine life in the ocean. Remeber the shark is a keystone predator and keeps many marine life in checks and balances. If you remove it you destroy the marine ecosystem which is why it's such a big deal.
CHOMPERS;2145353; said:
All this sounds wonderful,now go and tell it to the people who are mass slaughtering the sharks.When there is nothing left,then there will be nothing to argue over.Gone is gone.
krichardson;2145528; said:
well if you think about it... this all started in Japan... right? where would they get cartilage besides from sharks?
nativelover;2145470; said:
As I said, I haven't seen it and its not what the thread is about. Obviously if they're eating the whole animal and not just the fins then its not quite as bad as finning, but eating any endagered species (or one that is not known to be not endangered) for a delacy is pretty selfish IMO. Its not like its a case of starving refugees eating whatever they can get their hands on, its simply just the greed, selfishness and stupidity of the average modern human.
nativelover;2145549; said:
Who said it started in Japan?I dont know where it started but I do know that cartilage comes from other sources.
- Status
