Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (82465)	10/31/2011 6:11:03 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 219711

In a way it's good that poor people throw away the shark and keep the fin. It means there is a lot of food surplus. I really can't imagine sharks being depleted. The cruelty aspect is questionable but sharks aren't worried about such niceties so they can't expect better in return. Fish swallow other fish whole and kill them by suffocating them in acid. It's not exactly mercy killing. I'm obsessive compulsive about waste so it seems weird to me that it's not worth keeping the shark, just the fin, but economics drives all sorts of absurd things [to me]. Flaring gas is another thing that gets me, but a lot is flared inside power stations out of sight and the electricity is wasted with lights and heat left on. Restaurants throw out huge amounts of food too. Our son had a first job at a buffett restaurant in a hotel and having spent his childhood in our family, had to ask and be instructed "Yes, you take that perfectly new, untouched, expensive and delicious food which people didn't eat and put it in that rubbish bin right there where you are standing". To me it's sacrilege. But that's life in the fast lane. Yes, I'm all for managing the commons aka natural resources. It's essential. But when there is a huge surplus, as there is for sharks judging by how frequently they eat people, there is no need for control. While messing with nature needs to be judicious, it's a mistake to think that nature is there in its current form because it's good for us. That's a mistake the Environmentalist Dogmatics make. I have been an environmentalist for nearly 60 years since - starting as a youngster. That doesn't mean any wacky "environmental" claim is true. Nature does NOT love humans and is NOT "in balance". While eliminating sharks would do something, it's not necessarily against human interests to do so. Yes, the sharks eat fish which feed on shellfish. Since I far prefer to eat schnapper which love shellfish, than eating the shellfish directly, I'm happy with the schnapper not being eaten by sharks. <The very real possibility is that the prey they subsist on will have their DNA diluted by less robust, or sickness prone, populations normally purged by shark predation.> Nature isn't so generous as to leave dodgy fish to enjoy the easy life. Something else will eat any fish not up to speed, even if it's slightly slower - hopefully me. We might have to go into the business of eating seals which might love it that other sharks and great white sharks are no longer catching the fish and eating seals which go out to get fish. There are swarms of seals in La Jolla. $50 per pound for the fin is good, but why not keep the rest of the fish even if only $1 per pound? I'd sell the fin and eat the fish. Mqurice

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (82465)	10/31/2011 6:35:27 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 219711

One thing about sharks -- even if you think they're dead, they don't know it, and they stay dangerous for a long time. I used to go trawling with my dad in the Gulf of Mexico. Sometimes we'd catch sharks, and he'd shoot them in the head and cut the line. He shot them so they wouldn't attack the bait or the fish we were trying to catch. He didn't bring them into the boat because even if you shoot them in the head, they take a very long time to die, and they could attack you in the boat. He tried it once. Having a shark attack you in your own boat is not fun. Probably shooting a shark in the head doesn't do much, the brains are tiny and easy to miss. Also, the other sharks attack the injured one, and that gives them something to eat, distracts them while we travelled on. Did not cut off the fin, we'd never heard of shark fin soup. One time he caught a big, beautiful tuna, and a Japanese fishing boat paid him what seemed like a lot of money, and gave him some slices, and showed him how to eat it raw. That was more than 40 years ago, we'd never heard of such a thing, but it was good. Raw fresh tuna, better than cooked, much better than canned.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (82465)	10/31/2011 7:06:17 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 219711

we must educate the children on the many good uses of the shark, and none of the good uses involve keeping the shark alive if we wish to keep the sharks going, why not form a committee to keep the ebola virus and aids alive as well to better manage resources, ban all private cars not driven by chauffeurs and task the chauffeur professional association with policing the law