Comments on: California Bans Trade in Shark Fins

By: Mikey Mike

Mikey Mike — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 04:31:34 +0000

@Dayana

Just like bluefin tuna?

Here’s the thing. If you want to save a species, you need to leave it alone.

By: Douglas Main

Douglas Main — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:02:27 +0000

Paul B–Thanks for the comment. It would be funny if NBA players had to take oceanography courses… but I included that tidbit for the reason that CraterJoe points out–Ming is a huge celebrity in China, and his opinion is influential.

By: CraterJoe

CraterJoe — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:47:59 +0000

@Paul B
Yao Ming is quite a celebrity in China, so his opinion can hold sway with the Chinese.

By: Eric Mills

Eric Mills — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:45:34 +0000

Now that the sharks have been given some well-deserved respite, it’s time to address the state’s many live animal food markets, where the problems are much the same: horrendous animal cruelty and unsustainable “harvest” (esp. of turtles), plus risks to public health.

California annually imports two million American bullfrogs and 300,000-400,000 freshwater turtles for human consumption. None of these animals are native here, and when released into the wild (a common, though illegal practice), the exotics prey upon and displace our native wildlife. Worse, they’re all diseased and/or parasitized. Most of the frogs carry the dreaded chytrid fungus, responsible for the extinctions of some 200 amphibians species worldwide since the 1970′s.

WE NEED A LAW BANNING THE IMPORTATION, POSSESSION AND SALE OF LIVE, NON-NATIVE FROGS AND TURTLES FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

All legislators may be written c/o The State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814. Now’s the time. Most will decide this month upon what bills to carry next year.

Sincerely,
Eric Mills, coordinator
ACTION FOR ANIMALS
email – afa@mcn.org

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:35:32 +0000

Your uncle should have no problem with this law as it has nothing to do with live sharks. The law makes the sale of shark fins, not sharks, illegal in the state of California. Furthermore, the law states that businesses and individuals can sell fins obtained before the ban. Since he has presumably had his sharks for longer than the ban has been in place he should be free and clear.

By: Dayana

Dayana — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:31:15 +0000

Shark lovers should be aware of the law of unforeseen consequences.

My uncle in California is an ocean enthusiast. He has huge tanks with all kinds of exotic sea creatures. He has two small sharks that he cares for and loves. Since possesion of a live shark obviously includes possession of fins, he is worried that he will be forced to kill and dispose of his two beloved sharks before the ban goes into effect.

Like all big government nanny-state “solutions” this law will have the opposite effect, driving sharkers into a black market where they will have no incentive to preserve the species for future profits. A wiser programme would be to license sharkers and set limits, the same way we do with hunting.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:18:08 +0000

Not that I disagree with the ban, but why does it matter what some retired NBA player thinks about shark fins? Does basketball training include oceanography courses or something?