I finally managed to get around to watching Gordon Ramsay’s programme, Shark Bait, on the acquisition and trade of shark fins.
Horrifying. Thought-provoking. Saddening.
It maddens me that seemingly so little is being done about the trade – catches are not monitored, and there’s little control over the size of the sharks caught. One of the fishing boats in the programme (the only one Ramsay was allowed to board to watch the catch being brought in) had 800 hooks on a line 12 miles long. Not to mention the fact that the boat was out at sea for a month. Do the maths. The sharks being caught weren’t even adults – they were yearlings, if you were lucky, and even then they were finned and thrown into the hold.
And let’s not forget that most larger sharks are simply finned and dumped overboard. Alive. Bunny-huggers bang on about how our meat is slaughtered, but at the very least we kill the bloody thing before we start cutting it up! 😡
30 tons of fins were brought in by one boat. Again, more maths. The fins make up about 5% of just one shark.
Sharks take years to reach sexual maturity, and even then they don’t produce anywhere near the numbers of young that bony fish (like cod, for instance) do. Some of the sharks shown in the programme (the silky shark) produce a litter of, at most, two dozen every couple of years. Some others, like the family that includes the great white, produce even fewer. And yet more, like the sand tigers which are a favourite of the aquarium scene, produce fewer than that.
A note at the end of the programme mentioned that the Costa Rican government had closed all privately-owned fishing docks in order to combat the trade, and that four high-profile Chinese restaurants in London had removed shark fin soup from their menus altogether. It’s a start, at least.
The thing is, I know that most people won’t be that bothered. “It’s a shark, why should we care?” People SHOULD care, because at the rate they’re being fished these fascinating beasts won’t be around forever – and they managed for nearly 400million years before mankind came along.
By: Sky High - 2nd February 2011 at 08:25
Well indeed – problems arise daily and we all have to find way of solving them. That’s the solution. In this case the solution was to kill the dogs, albeit in a way none of us would support.
By: Lincoln 7 - 1st February 2011 at 20:00
Leaving aside the totally unsupportable method of their slaughter, which I do not condone for a second, what should they have done with 100 dogs for which there was no work and no need and presumably no means to feed and water them?
Now come on here, they are not all that far from the Arctic circle the Iditorods would have welcomed them with open arms, as would many others in that area, it’s only a Hercules job after all, as my signature states, “There is no such thing as a problem, only a solution. however, some idle S*D couldnt be bothered to try, and took the easy way out.
I hope they sling the book at those concerned.
Lincoln. 7
By: Gooney Bird - 1st February 2011 at 19:55
Leaving aside the totally unsupportable method of their slaughter, which I do not condone for a second, what should they have done with 100 dogs for which there was no work and no need and presumably no means to feed and water them?
I think you missed the point, it was the method of slaughter that was used and not so much the fact they were slaughtered. As Lincoln.7 points out, we are talking about a civilised country!
By: Sky High - 1st February 2011 at 19:42
Leaving aside the totally unsupportable method of their slaughter, which I do not condone for a second, what should they have done with 100 dogs for which there was no work and no need and presumably no means to feed and water them?
By: Lincoln 7 - 1st February 2011 at 19:26
Cultural differences? I hardly think so in this case:
A dog-sled company in Whistler, British Columbia, ordered the killing of 100 dogs in April, 2010, when bookings for adventure tourism slumped after the Olympic Games.
Vancouver radio station CKNW obtained documents revealing that 100 healthy sled dogs were killed in a mass slaughter at Outdoor Adventures Whistler last April 21 and 23.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the story actually gets worse. From CKNW: (Warning – this is pretty gruesome reading.)
Worksafe BC documents obtained by CKNW say an employee has been granted compensation after developing post traumatic stress disorder for having to kill the dogs himself over a two day period.
Lawyer Cory Steinberg says the employee “….. ended up having to do it…I guess the only way to describe it was “near misses”. It wasn’t always a clean, one-shot kill. Inevitably he ended up seeing and having to put the end to some horrific scenes.”
Steinberg speaks on behalf of the worker who doesn’t want to be named.
In most cases dogs were shot more than once, or had their throats slashed before they were pitched into what is described in the documents as a mass grave. Some were still alive.

The company didn’t contest the Worksafe injury claim. In fact, they even made a correction, where the worker stated he had killed 70 dogs, the company corrected and wrote he had actually killed 100.
According to CKNW, Mary Moriarty, the head of cruelty investigations at the BC SPCA says they are launching an investigation, after reviewing the Worksafe BC file. She adds that it’s a dirty secret of the industry that so many dogs are bred purely out of greed.
Moriarty says there appear to have been breaches of the animal cruelty act in the cull and criminal charges are a possibility.
Well, yes. A brief reading of Canada’s Animal Cruelty Act states that there is zero tolerance for animal cruelty.
It’s hardly surprising that the Outdoor Adventures employee suffered post traumatic stress disorder and is entitled to compensation, but there is no way to grant compensation to those dogs.
Let’s hope this heartless organization is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and that we never have to read about such cruelty again.
Read more: animal welfare, euthanization, sled dogs, adventure tourism, british columbia canada, animal cruelty act
I am absolutely astounded at reading this. If I were to say what I think about this posting, I would definately get a red card.
And we think we are civilised.
Lincoln .7
😡
By: barry flahey - 1st February 2011 at 18:53
Cultural differences? I hardly think so in this case:
A dog-sled company in Whistler, British Columbia, ordered the killing of 100 dogs in April, 2010, when bookings for adventure tourism slumped after the Olympic Games.
Vancouver radio station CKNW obtained documents revealing that 100 healthy sled dogs were killed in a mass slaughter at Outdoor Adventures Whistler last April 21 and 23.
If that wasn’t bad enough, the story actually gets worse. From CKNW: (Warning – this is pretty gruesome reading.)
Worksafe BC documents obtained by CKNW say an employee has been granted compensation after developing post traumatic stress disorder for having to kill the dogs himself over a two day period.
Lawyer Cory Steinberg says the employee “….. ended up having to do it…I guess the only way to describe it was “near misses”. It wasn’t always a clean, one-shot kill. Inevitably he ended up seeing and having to put the end to some horrific scenes.”
Steinberg speaks on behalf of the worker who doesn’t want to be named.
In most cases dogs were shot more than once, or had their throats slashed before they were pitched into what is described in the documents as a mass grave. Some were still alive.

The company didn’t contest the Worksafe injury claim. In fact, they even made a correction, where the worker stated he had killed 70 dogs, the company corrected and wrote he had actually killed 100.
According to CKNW, Mary Moriarty, the head of cruelty investigations at the BC SPCA says they are launching an investigation, after reviewing the Worksafe BC file. She adds that it’s a dirty secret of the industry that so many dogs are bred purely out of greed.
Moriarty says there appear to have been breaches of the animal cruelty act in the cull and criminal charges are a possibility.
Well, yes. A brief reading of Canada’s Animal Cruelty Act states that there is zero tolerance for animal cruelty.
It’s hardly surprising that the Outdoor Adventures employee suffered post traumatic stress disorder and is entitled to compensation, but there is no way to grant compensation to those dogs.
Let’s hope this heartless organization is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and that we never have to read about such cruelty again.
Read more: animal welfare, euthanization, sled dogs, adventure tourism, british columbia canada, animal cruelty act
By: tornado64 - 1st February 2011 at 17:51
another thing that confuses me is
if people are totaly against killing animals how many would give up
leather shoes , leather car interiors , jelly , jelly babies , leather jackets , wallets , bags , furniture , etc etc !!
one vegetarian once said to me ” i wouldn’t eat anything that has a face on it !! “
she was well p*ssed off at dinner time cos i doodled a smiley on her apple !!
By: Sky High - 1st February 2011 at 17:47
Linc 7 – you feel strongly about this as is clear from your posts but despite the fact that you do not condone the activity, can you accept that other people in other cultures do things differently and often in ways which might offend us?:)
By: tornado64 - 1st February 2011 at 17:37
a lot of people would call me cruel , as i have eaten veal , horse meat and if presented with the oppertunity would eat sharks fin soup or dog !!
i feel it is odd how we can shout horrendously here about eating dogs yet happily pick up a chicken or lamb joint without a thaught
maybe we do kill more humanely but the end result is still the same
at least the sharks are about as free range as you can get
british baulk at veal yet most comes from male cattle stock therefore in britain through not eating veal the cattle are slaughtered and most are unused
( slaughtered and not eaten in any shape or form ) so merely killed as a sideline !!
at least the fin gets used even if only a small part
people who kill animals as a sideline because people will not eat it should be realy carefull about who they quiz about thier actions
we get too hung up about animals in the uk
yes there is a difrence abroad they cannot claim social security , jobs are extremely thin on the ground , the ones that are there probably pay the same for six months work as we get paid for one week ( probably a year for some )
they have familys to feed and it is probably thier only option
but still they are still held in higher esteem than the inland revenue or lawyers !!
By: Lincoln 7 - 1st February 2011 at 17:24
It’s certainly a very emotive subject, Blue_2, and one I very much doubt we’ll all ever agree on! Perhaps agreeing to disagree is the best course of action. 🙂
T.B.H. I was not going to post on this topic anymore, but PMN I am quite willing to agree to disagree.And no doubt will again in the future!!
Lincoln.7
😉
By: PMN - 1st February 2011 at 16:25
It’s certainly a very emotive subject, Blue_2, and one I very much doubt we’ll all ever agree on! Perhaps agreeing to disagree is the best course of action. 🙂
By: Blue_2 - 1st February 2011 at 16:15
I suspect most posts on this thread have come from the heart rather than the head, not that I’m saying that’s a bad thing. It is after all a very emotive (and divisive) subject. I think both sides have made some very good points.
By: Sky High - 1st February 2011 at 15:35
I think that is exactly right, PMN. And that thought takes us back to the earlier posts in the debate. It is one of those subjects where objectivity struggles to gain ascendancy over emotion. Those two words “cull” and “seal” are guranteed to stir the emotions in many people.
By: PMN - 1st February 2011 at 15:13
Sky High, that’s the problem. Too many people say something’s wrong because they believe it to be wrong, rather than seeing the wider picture and realising not everyone has the same concept of what wrong actually is. I will never question anyone’s concept of right or wrong here on an internet forum, but I will question whether they have the right to apply their thoughts and logic to people in very different circumstances.
By: Sky High - 1st February 2011 at 14:56
Calm down chaps 🙂 – see what happens when emotion overcomes objectivity…
By: Lincoln 7 - 1st February 2011 at 14:52
I suggest you read reply number 49.
I have made my position quite clear, and if you wish to carry on with this now pointless argument, feel free to do so, with youself!!
Lincolm. 7
By: PMN - 1st February 2011 at 14:42
Stop trying to big yourself up!!, by making remarks like you do.
Huh? I’m not trying to big myself up, I’m responding to what you wrote. Quite simple really.
…Is that not a natural death…?
Exactly, so what’s unnatural about us killing animals for food?
By: Blue_2 - 1st February 2011 at 13:21
Presumably that also means lions can’t kill zebras and common house spiders can’t kill flies?
…Is that not a natural death…?
By: Lincoln 7 - 1st February 2011 at 12:59
But killing animals isn’t wrong. The killing of various members of species has occurred for millions of years, by members of other species.
The inhumane killing of animals by humans is wrong, yes, but unless you want to eat cabbage (etc.) for the rest of your life, then the killing of animals is sort of vital!
O.K. Chris. What about the NEEDLESS killing of animals, will that satisfy you,?.Again, I repeat, it was my answer to the killing of seals in Canada, and the U.K. nothing more, nothing less.
Lincoln. 7
By: ChrisGlobe - 1st February 2011 at 12:50
But killing animals isn’t wrong. The killing of various members of species has occurred for millions of years, by members of other species.
The inhumane killing of animals by humans is wrong, yes, but unless you want to eat cabbage (etc.) for the rest of your life, then the killing of animals is sort of vital!
Sign In
January 26, 2011 at 7:09 am