Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

brodoswaggins93 t1_j0jgzjr wrote

The USA accounts for I believe 1% of the shark fin trade. They're also one of the leading countries in actual sustainable shark fisheries. This ban is nice, but it's more symbolic than anything.


Ripcord t1_j0jl18s wrote

It's not more symbolic than anything. No need to shit on it, this will have a real impact even if not huge.


brodoswaggins93 t1_j0jls0o wrote

I'm not shitting on it. It's nice that a world leader country is taking this stance. However, in terms of actual conservation numbers for shark populations, considering the fact that this primarily affects fisheries that have already been certified as sustainable, it doesn't actually do much for protecting any species from extinction or overexploitation.


Ripcord t1_j0jns4m wrote

You don't need to add that part. Just let the nice thing be nice, and don't overthink and downplay it. It's a nice thing. That's enough.

That's the sub.


brodoswaggins93 t1_j0jnxym wrote

Just giving an honest answer to the commenter asking about the impact this will have.


mtgdrummer13 t1_j0k00f0 wrote

I think your answer is important - context is always important, usually essential. If it weren’t for interjections like this, we would be a way more ignorant people. We would take bills at their title, articles at their headline, and corporations at their word… and we know by now to not do that. Always look deeper. Thanks for the clarification


brodoswaggins93 t1_j0l4wph wrote

You're welcome. I'm a marine biologist who has done a lot of work with sharks, so I know a lot about the topic, I'm passionate about it, and I care deeply about educating people on it. I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the intricacies of a bill like this because in the end that's more harmful for conservation. If we think we're doing more than we're actually doing, we'll be happy to pat ourselves on the back and assume mission accomplished when that's far from the case.

The real good news for sharks came out of CITES a few weeks ago, they imposed restrictions on the international trade of 90 or so shark species. This TRIPLES the number of shark species under CITES protection and accounts for approximately 90% of of the fin trade. It's a massive, unprecedented, historic win for shark conservation.


mtgdrummer13 t1_j0l8zd6 wrote

Awesome! I have a BA in environmental science. I ended up doing music full time but people like you are heroes and we appreciate you. What you said about turning a blind eye to the intricacies and consequently thinking that it’s “problem solved!” Is such an important addition. Learning that something is, in fact, not solved is of course disappointing, but re motivates people to actually get it solved, so please be a “Adam ruins everything” so we can actually continue making progress on these important issues


123full t1_j0k7frg wrote

I mean theoretically this could empower the US navy to go after foreign vassals engaging in Shark fun fin trading, the US has pretty much since it’s inception take the position that it has the right to intervene in crimes taking place in international waters. Not saying that this does it, but it could open the door up for it later down the line


jw8815 t1_j0ks1jh wrote

Legally no. The Navy isn't a law enforcement agency. Much like the Army can't enforce laws on land. Also, US law doesn't extend into areas that aren't the US.


brodoswaggins93 t1_j0l40e9 wrote

Shark finning has already been banned in the US for a while, and they don't go after finning boats in international waters.

CITES recently restricted international trade on roughly 90% of shark fins, so there's already going to be international cooperation on seizing shark fins from protected species in the ports of approximately 170 countries. There's no reason for the US to take things into their own hands in international waters when it will already be dealt with by border agents both in the country of the fins' origin and in the importing country.