Liverpool FC Forum

[aCe']

All hail aCe', THE international shark/fishing/sustainability expert, specialising in patronage

If humans believed that those shark species were worth more (in any aspect) in the long term than they are now, they wouldn’t be endangered

And nonsense 

why arent sheep, chicken and pigs endangered ?
Why do we worry about the sustainability of other resources such as forests, clean water, and air ?!

All comes down to what you expect the future value of something to be, as opposed to its present value... this goes  way way beyond just sharks... the whole global warming nonsense does my head and its pretty much the same arguments albeit at a greater scale and in a differnt context...

Its not simple im not saying it is... taken out of context the line you quoted might sound like BS to you but trust me, its how people think (intrinsicly) about such things...

Its a totally different ball game when it comes to sharks... the costs of protection in most cases, in most countries are unrealistically high... its not the same as protecting a spottd owl or an american bison.. in such cases you'd simply assign property rights to someone and subsidize them the continuity of the animal.. simple, cost-efficient, and more importantly effective... how would you do that though with sharks in poor areas where most of the population of a town would rely on fishing for a living ?

Again, if the economic benefits or the environmental benefits or sustaining the numbers of sharks in such waters for the long term were higher than the costs the people.governments in such areas would endure, it wouldnt have been an issue in the first place... The fact that it is, means that theres more to it than "lets stop the fishermen from killing sharks by passing a law that forces them not to"...

[Big Niall]

It is truely barbaric but ultimatley if there is a market for them then this will continue. Seal clubbing, whale hunting, the list goes on.... Id love to follow one of these fishing boats out to sea and just sink their ship, watch them sink and fecking die the .

Anyway I am a firm believer in karma. These people will get what's coming to them one day.

You believe in Karma ?- that is so pathetic. How do you explain the criminals and sex criminals that have won the lottery. how about the crack babies and other f*cked up innocents? is that karma for a past life ala glen hoddle.

Hey, why not just say you believe in feng shui (spelling?) , Karma belief really is stupid. Think about it and then expalin how this grand scheme works, or maybe you just think it is cool like kaballah (or is that too 2005?)ally?

What scientific evidence have you studied to back up your belief in Karma, or was it on the back of a pack of cornflakes?

[aCe']

I've nothing against hunting but isn't it common sense that you don't kill the young ones of a specie because you need them to breed to continue hunting?

Nail, you need ADULT ones to make more young ones. 

Also, a shark pups are highly vulnerable due to the carniverous nature of adult sharks, which makes their dwindling numbers even more concerning due to how difficult it is for them to survive to adult stages.

okay - this is technical but try and follow.

The adult of a specie comes from not killing the young of a specie.

for what its worth im pretty sure they arent even as endangered as some claim they are... perhaps in certain areas some of the species of sharks mentioned have declined in numbers but its very very hard to determine whether such animals are really down in numbers to an extent where theyd be classified as endangered...

All it takes is a couple of nutcase tourists from the US being in a cruise in China or something spotting a few dead sharks floating and remembering they had shark-fin soup for lunch for it to be claimed a potential global shark extinction crisis...

[tubby]

It is truely barbaric but ultimatley if there is a market for them then this will continue. Seal clubbing, whale hunting, the list goes on.... Id love to follow one of these fishing boats out to sea and just sink their ship, watch them sink and fecking die the .

Anyway I am a firm believer in karma. These people will get what's coming to them one day.

You believe in Karma ?- that is so pathetic. How do you explain the criminals and sex criminals that have won the lottery. how about the crack babies and other f*cked up innocents? is that karma for a past life ala glen hoddle.

Hey, why not just say you believe in feng shui (spelling?) , Karma belief really is stupid. Think about it and then expalin how this grand scheme works, or maybe you just think it is cool like kaballah (or is that too 2005?)ally?

What scientific evidence have you studied to back up your belief in Karma, or was it on the back of a pack of cornflakes?

Don't yoiu know there are books on it? Where have you been?

At the end of the day those who are in this live will suffer in a future life.

Not trying to sound too out there but you can probably tell from my name I am asian, and a lot of asian people are quite religious. There are probably many aspects in our culture that people like you cannot comprehend.

There are a lot of things some people believe in which others may not. It's called diversity so keep an open mind or if you can't do that then keep your mouth with silly remarks. Stick to slagging of our players mate.

[tubby]

I've nothing against hunting but isn't it common sense that you don't kill the young ones of a specie because you need them to breed to continue hunting?

Nail, you need ADULT ones to make more young ones. 

Also, a shark pups are highly vulnerable due to the carniverous nature of adult sharks, which makes their dwindling numbers even more concerning due to how difficult it is for them to survive to adult stages.

okay - this is technical but try and follow.

The adult of a specie comes from not killing the young of a specie.

for what its worth im pretty sure they arent even as endangered as some claim they are... perhaps in certain areas some of the species of sharks mentioned have declined in numbers but its very very hard to determine whether such animals are really down in numbers to an extent where theyd be classified as endangered...

All it takes is a couple of nutcase tourists from the US being in a cruise in China or something spotting a few dead sharks floating and remembering they had shark-fin soup for lunch for it to be claimed a potential global shark extinction crisis...

Actually sawfishes are endangered and are now protected by CITES.

Also there were a few studies done that found around a 1/3 of shark and ray species could be endangered, hammerhead sharks in particular. So no it is not just a case of a few 'nutters' noticing a few dead sharks and throwing a wobbler. It is a problem and needs to be addressed.

[url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sharks-And-Rays-A-Third-Face-Exctinction-Because-Of-Overfishing-Great-White-Shark-Is-Vulne
rable/Article/200906415318711]http://news.sky.com/skynews....5318711[/url]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news....48.html

[aCe']

im sorry it was just a joke... jeez..
nonetheless i still think the studies are a joke and are as about as accurate as Kuyts long range efforts...
something will be done about it though so all will be good soon i guess... wouldnt expect much to be done in the far east but given the amount of interest in the topic id think the pressure will force lawmakers into making some decisions..

[tubby]

No worries mate wasn't tryng to have a pop at you. I am no expert so I canny question the validity of what the experts say but I really doubt they would make such claims especially with specific species ect.... I'm sure the methods they use are accurate to some point. Didn't they say something not too long ago about cod numbers dropping too? Can't remember but I think it was cod.

PS I know this isn't really the topic but if there are any big animal lovers here who love all the BBC natural history programming there is a new show coming soon called Life. It's going to be massive and IMO from what I have seen it will surpass Planet Earth.

[Sabre]

its not as simple as you guys seem to think it is... its not like you're stopping people from fishing for sharks in your local malls aquarium...

*The audience goes oooooh*

first off, the geographic region in which the fishing takes place for sharks is much wider than that of the north sea cod stocks you talked about... Secondly, most of the shark fishing takes place in developing asian countries where its alot harder to control such activites.

Aaaaaah.

Instead controlling wide areas of seas with frigates and vessels, I think it would be cheaper not to buy those sharks when they eventually arrive some port.

Licensed vessels who respect the bans periods can sell their product which will have a certain label, and the ones who don't won't. Buying proper fishing is something we can certainly do and demand with no need to control big areas of sea. If we don't buy compulsively, they probably won't find so tempting to go and fish too much.

It's as simple as the consumers setting some conditions.

[aCe']

its not as simple as you guys seem to think it is... its not like you're stopping people from fishing for sharks in your local malls aquarium...

*The audience goes oooooh*

first off, the geographic region in which the fishing takes place for sharks is much wider than that of the north sea cod stocks you talked about... Secondly, most of the shark fishing takes place in developing asian countries where its alot harder to control such activites.

Aaaaaah.

Instead controlling wide areas of seas with frigates and vessels, I think it would be cheaper not to buy those sharks when they eventually arrive some port.

Licensed vessels who respect the bans periods can sell their product which will have a certain label, and the ones who don't won't. Buying proper fishing is something we can certainly do and demand with no need to control big areas of sea. If we don't buy compulsively, they probably won't find so tempting to go and fish too much.

It's as simple as the consumers setting some conditions.

no need for the condescending tone there lad... especially not when everything that follows is childish blabber...

its a consumer driven industry in the first place... consumers setting conditions is limited to them either buying the final product (fin-soup) or not... If you're talking about local restaurants in the far east only buying shark fins from licensed fishermen, then you're obviously deluded... Put simply, they'll buy the cheapest fins they find, and the final consumers wouldn't care less, just as they dont now, hence them buying it regardless of sharks being endangered or not...

It would have been a different matter all together if the sharks' habitat and the huge fin soup market was around developed countries, sadly its not. You could probably argue that law enforcement agencies could force the issue on local restaurants and demand that only licensed outlets sell the soup, setting fixed amounts of shark fins they could buy in a time period..etc etc.. but again, the costs in terms of jobs, enforcement, restaurant losses...etc would be assumed to be greater than the benefits of such action, which is probably why its not in practice atm...

[LFC2007]

why arent sheep, chicken and pigs endangered ?
Why do we worry about the sustainability of other resources such as forests, clean water, and air ?!

All comes down to what you expect the future value of something to be, as opposed to its present value... this goes  way way beyond just sharks... the whole global warming nonsense does my head and its pretty much the same arguments albeit at a greater scale and in a differnt context...

Its not simple im not saying it is... taken out of context the line you quoted might sound like BS to you but trust me, its how people think (intrinsicly) about such things...

Its a totally different ball game when it comes to sharks... the costs of protection in most cases, in most countries are unrealistically high... its not the same as protecting a spottd owl or an american bison.. in such cases you'd simply assign property rights to someone and subsidize them the continuity of the animal.. simple, cost-efficient, and more importantly effective... how would you do that though with sharks in poor areas where most of the population of a town would rely on fishing for a living ?

Again, if the economic benefits or the environmental benefits or sustaining the numbers of sharks in such waters for the long term were higher than the costs the people.governments in such areas would endure, it wouldnt have been an issue in the first place... The fact that it is, means that theres more to it than "lets stop the fishermen from killing sharks by passing a law that forces them not to"...

I'll get to the key points later, but a summary:
In the long-term it isn’t economically sound to deplete fish stocks to levels that threaten the existence of a species, particularly so for shark fins as they command a high price. If the industry continued unrestricted it risks losing that market. As stocks decline, competition for stock increases, and ultimately it’s the local fishermen that lose out, not large firms that utilise factory ships to dominate the market. They may source another species, that depends on how many different species of shark are valuable for their fins and if any compromise in quality would result, but there could be consequences to that; lower demand for the product, or lower price. That aside, why severely compromise the future viability of that product – a commodity of such value – in the drive for short-to-medium term profit? It cannot make sound long-term economic sense, given the potential impact on the economy; and it's usually those with limited means, or the consumer that will suffer because of this.

This is where I take issue with your views. It’s your assertion here that ‘people act rationally’ that doesn’t tally with the facts because all too often the nature of big business is to compromise economic sustainability in the drive for short-term profit; the rationale behind overfishing does not support a long-term economic view. This ‘common sense’ you speak of didn’t prevail for the (collapsed) Peruvian Anchoveta industry, neither was it recognised by those most prominent in the industry when North Sea cod stocks declined rapidly. No, that took intervention, ‘common sense’ intervention no less.

Back to those traditional fishing villages you refer to; it's a very important point. One presumes, given that they're 'poor' they would have limited means to haul catches of quantities sufficient to pose a significant threat to the continuity of the species they're fishing. Thus, these communities would not be affected by any quotas imposed for the purpose of sustainability, and it is possible to create a legal framework that reflects this crucial difference.

Ultimately, only those with the means to overfish can overfish and they're usually the large firms I referred to earlier. And so it all boils down to your definition of 'economically beneficial'. Irresponsibility that threatens entire stocks propogated by those with the means to do so doesn't merely affect their own interests, as noted, it affects local fisherman or traiditional fishing villages with limited means, and needless to say this has ramifications to the wider economy.To me then, it can only mean that those benefitting are those who've made a mint from exploiting an endangered stock. If that makes economic sense to you, fair enough, it doesn't to me though. That's why governments take measures to regulate, as well as the need to preserve stocks on environmental grounds. Consumers drive demand; they do not necessarily drive sustainable practice. In other words, consumers have and do get caught out because of irresponsible - in this case unsustainable - practices.

The specific case of sharks is trickier because it's harder to regulate and some governments - like big business - are willing to compromise sustainable practices for short-term political goals.

[aCe']

why arent sheep, chicken and pigs endangered ?
Why do we worry about the sustainability of other resources such as forests, clean water, and air ?!

All comes down to what you expect the future value of something to be, as opposed to its present value... this goes  way way beyond just sharks... the whole global warming nonsense does my head and its pretty much the same arguments albeit at a greater scale and in a differnt context...

Its not simple im not saying it is... taken out of context the line you quoted might sound like BS to you but trust me, its how people think (intrinsicly) about such things...

Its a totally different ball game when it comes to sharks... the costs of protection in most cases, in most countries are unrealistically high... its not the same as protecting a spottd owl or an american bison.. in such cases you'd simply assign property rights to someone and subsidize them the continuity of the animal.. simple, cost-efficient, and more importantly effective... how would you do that though with sharks in poor areas where most of the population of a town would rely on fishing for a living ?

Again, if the economic benefits or the environmental benefits or sustaining the numbers of sharks in such waters for the long term were higher than the costs the people.governments in such areas would endure, it wouldnt have been an issue in the first place... The fact that it is, means that theres more to it than "lets stop the fishermen from killing sharks by passing a law that forces them not to"...

I'll get to the key points later, but a summary:
In the long-term it isn’t economically sound to deplete fish stocks to levels that threaten the existence of a species, particularly so for shark fins as they command a high price. If the industry continued unrestricted it risks losing that market. As stocks decline, competition for stock increases, and ultimately it’s the local fishermen that lose out, not large firms that utilise factory ships to dominate the market. They may source another species, that depends on how many different species of shark are valuable for their fins and if any compromise in quality would result, but there could be consequences to that; lower demand for the product, or lower price. That aside, why severely compromise the future viability of that product – a commodity of such value – in the drive for short-to-medium term profit? It cannot make sound long-term economic sense, given the potential impact on the economy; and it's usually those with limited means, or the consumer that will suffer because of this.

This is where I take issue with your views. It’s your assertion here that ‘people act rationally’ that doesn’t tally with the facts because all too often the nature of big business is to compromise economic sustainability in the drive for short-term profit; the rationale behind overfishing does not support a long-term economic view. This ‘common sense’ you speak of didn’t prevail for the (collapsed) Peruvian Anchoveta industry, neither was it recognised by those most prominent in the industry when North Sea cod stocks declined rapidly. No, that took intervention, ‘common sense’ intervention no less.

Back to those traditional fishing villages you refer to; it's a very important point. One presumes, given that they're 'poor' they would have limited means to haul catches of quantities sufficient to pose a significant threat to the continuity of the species they're fishing. Thus, these communities would not be affected by any quotas imposed for the purpose of sustainability, and it is possible to create a legal framework that reflects this crucial difference.

Ultimately, only those with the means to overfish can overfish and they're usually the large firms I referred to earlier. And so it all boils down to your definition of 'economically beneficial'. Irresponsibility that threatens entire stocks propogated by those with the means to do so doesn't merely affect their own interests, as noted, it affects local fisherman or traiditional fishing villages with limited means, and needless to say this has ramifications to the wider economy.To me then, it can only mean that those benefitting are those who've made a mint from exploiting an endangered stock. If that makes economic sense to you, fair enough, it doesn't to me though. That's why governments take measures to regulate, as well as the need to preserve stocks on environmental grounds. Consumers drive demand; they do not necessarily drive sustainable practice. In other words, consumers have and do get caught out because of irresponsible - in this case unsustainable - practices.

The specific case of sharks is trickier because it's harder to regulate and some governments - like big business - are willing to compromise sustainable practices for short-term political goals.

thats a very good post mate and i agree with most of whats being said...

Ill keep it short ... your main point is about long term as opposed to short term benefit... Well, ideally you would want to sustain any resource for the long term to benefit from it for an infinite amount of time. Realistically, that cant always be expected... Today, the shark fins are at their highest price ever. The demand is high and the prices are high and the shortage is driving both prices and willingness to supply further up. Until here, everything is rational.
Your point about risking losing the market tomorrow is a valid one.. Its a big debate when it comes to natural resources and many oil rich nations face the same dilemma. Sell alot today and risk having nothing to sell tomorrow or sell less today and have some to sell tomorrow? its a cycle and there is no right and wrong way to approach this in economic terms. In making big profits in the short term, you not only avoid the risks of declining demand or prices in the long term, but you also provide yourself with the means to being better equipped to facing any issues that might arise tomorrow... The other side of the story is that in selling big today, you potentially miss out on selling anything tomorrow, which could mean that your source of income no longer exists..

Ill continue this later just have to go get some stuff done... but good points you made there and im somewhat convinced with what you're saying... ill still argue for the sake of it though 

[aCe']

Alright ill get straight to to the point..
Im not saying that there is no need for government intervention or some sort of intervention because quite obviously there is.. Its a classic case of market failure due to the exploitation of a public good. Its all rational as i said till it gets to a point where mere rationality, economic common sense, and efficiency no longer constrain decision making. The problem at the moment is that price reflects the private marginal cost of the fishermen guilty of overfishing rather than the social marginal cost to the shark fishing industry in specific, and all those who are concerned about shark extinction in general. I’m not arguing the need for intervention, what im saying is that as things stand, many poor areas(villages) where fishing (for shark fins for the sake of discussion) is the main source of income are going to find it very hard to implement the control policies you suggested  that could very well lead to the short term crumbling of their economy.. by that i mean fishermen losing their jobs leading to less consumption overall, and restaurants having less shark-fin soup to serve leading to further losses.
Of course, a lack of solution could very well put the future welfare of such fishermen and villages in jeopardy, which only makes the situation harder to resolve and more complicated to address. If its any consolation to all the shark extremists out there, i really think that the whole thing (while blow out of proportion in terms of the extent of scarcity) will be figured out before long... Afterall, economists are the smartest bunch around and they have for oh so very long dug us out of deep sht in pretty much every aspect of life... What would we have done without them? Wonderful bunch of people god bless them... 

Im done talking about sharks for now...fckin hell iv never tried the shark-fin soup the fckers cant get extinct yet...

[Sabre]