Response about shark finning from my senator

[echeng 0]

I just received this response from a letter I sent to my senator about shark finning:

 

Dear Mr. Cheng:

 

I received your letter expressing your concerns about shark finning. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.

 

Like you, I am concerned about the protection of sharks and I understand your concerns about the practice of finning, in which only the shark's fin is harvested and the rest of the body is wastefully tossed back to sea.

 

On April 22, 2009, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) introduced the "Shark Conservation Act of 2009" (S. 850). This bill amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act to prohibit the acts of removing any shark fin at sea or transporting a fin unless it is naturally attached to the shark carcass. It also directs the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to track nations which have not adopted shark conservation plans similar to the United States and whose fishing fleets target sharks. You may be interested to learn that a companion bill, H.R. 81, was introduced in the House by Representative Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) on March 3, 2009.

 

S. 850 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for further review. Although I am not a member of this committee, please know that I oppose the cruel practice of shark finning and will be sure to keep your concerns in mind should this bill come before the full Senate.

 

Once again, thank you for writing. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

 

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

 

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.c...erSignup.Signup.

 

Interesting. It's a letter of support, but it doesn't actually say that anything will be done. A conservation act without enforcement isn't so useful, eh?

[danielandrewclem 3]

Interesting. It's a letter of support, but it doesn't actually say that anything will be done. A conservation act without enforcement isn't so useful, eh?

 

If passed, this legislation would close a major loophole. From the Congressional Research Service summary :

 

4/22/2009--Introduced.

Shark Conservation Act of 2009 - Amends the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act to direct the Secretary of Commerce to list a nation in the biennial report on international compliance if the nation's fishing vessels are or have been engaged in fishing activities that target or incidentally catch sharks and the nation has not adopted a shark conservation program that is comparable, taking into account different conditions, to that of the United States, including measures to prohibit removal any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) and discarding the carcass of the shark at sea.

Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to revise provisions prohibiting the removal of shark fins to make it a prohibited act to: (1) remove any shark fin (including the tail) at sea; (2) have a fin aboard a fishing vessel unless the fin is naturally attached to the carcass; (3) transfer a fin from one vessel to another or receive a fin unless it is naturally attached; or (4) land a fin that is not naturally attached to a carcass or land a carcass without fins naturally attached. Revises the current rebuttable presumption provision concerning shark fins on fishing vessels to create a rebuttable presumption that, if any shark fin (including the tail) is aboard a non-fishing vessel without being naturally attached, the fin was transferred from a fishing vessel in violation.

The problem with the original anti-finning legislation was that it didn't address vessels that would be carry fins removed from sharks by other vessels. So, boats could go out on the high seas, do some longlining, fin the sharks—all far from any enforcement—and then a different boat could come take all the fins and bring them to a U.S. port. And those boats could get away with having fins and only fins because it wasn't a fishing boat, and therefore there was no proof that the finning had occurred on that boat. With this bill, if a boat comes to port with fins on it, those fins have to be attached to the shark. If not, then the law has been broken, regardless of whether the boat is a fishing vessel or a transport ship. If the USCG boards a boat at sea and finds loose fins, that boat is in trouble. Likewise, if the USCG or the Feds or the state enviro police board a boat at port, and there are loose fins, that boat is in trouble.

 

One of the key words is "land." In the Magnuson-Stevens Act, "land" means to offload fish or arrive at a port with fish onboard—not to simply catch fish, which is how laymen tend to use the word when it comes to fishing. Any fins coming to port will now have to be attached to the sharks they belonged to. That means finning, or transporting fins, will no longer be efficient or very profitable.

Edited August 4, 2009 by danielandrewclem

[ce4jesus 1]

How about a ban on shark fin products purchased in the US. That would be a good start.

[danielandrewclem 3]

How about a ban on shark fin products purchased in the US. That would be a good start.

That would be a fine place to start if U.S. consumption of shark fins were the real problem.

 

The problem is, the loophole in the existing laws allow containers full of shark fins to be landed and processed in places like Hawaii, and then sent back to Asia for consumption. Hypothetically, a fleet of longliners working in the central Pacific could fin thousands of sharks and then offload those fins at sea onto a different ship that could then take them to a nearby port (Honolulu, Pago Pago, etc.) LEGALLY for further processing. Because the fins would arrive on a non-fishing vessel, there was no fishing regulation to be enforced nor any fishing captain to be cited for violating the anti-finning laws passed years ago. After all, it was just some goods that had, according to the paperwork and all visible evidence, been caught elsewhere, and now it was being brought to Hawaii to be processed and then shipped out to Asia. The new legislation will make it illegal for such vessels to land fins unless the fins are still attached to the sharks. The loophole will be closed.

[crubie 1]

I agree the sale/consumption of shark fin products should be banned in the US.

 

It would at least set the standard to the rest of the world and give more weight to a ban on shark finning.

 

I was appalled to see a wall full of shark fins of different sizes for sale in one of Chicago's Chinatown Stores...

[echeng 0]

Another reply, today, from Barbara Boxer:

 

Dear Mr. Cheng:

 

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the treatment of animals. I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue.

 

Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have actively worked to ensure that animals are treated in a humane manner, and I continue to support significant animal welfare legislation. As Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act, I am also consistently one of the strongest advocates for maintaining and strengthening the Act to provide maximum protection for endangered wildlife.

 

I am very proud of successful legislative efforts to safeguard animals. I co-sponsored the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, which was signed into law on May 3, 2007, to strengthen the penalties for illegal animal fighting by making such crimes a felony. Most recently, my Senate colleagues and I unanimously passed Senate Resolution 84, which urges the Government of Canada to end its annual commercial seal hunt.

 

I have previously co-sponsored other bills that sought to protect animals. Among these were the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act, which would have ensured that all farm animals be humanely euthanized once they are unable to walk; the Pet Safety and Protection Act, which would have required that research institutions purchase and test dogs and cats only from a list of approved sources that treat animals humanely; and the Polar Bear Protection Act, which would have prohibited hunters from importing polar bear trophies and encouraged international collaboration to save the species.

 

Rest assured that I will keep working to enact important legislation to promote the humane treatment of animals and ensure animal welfare.

 

Thank you again for writing to me about protecting animals. Please contact me again in the future about this or other issues of concern to you.

 

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

[loftus 42]

Another reply, today, from Barbara Boxer:

Seems it's all about her!

But then what else would you expect from a senator!

[Drew 0]

Seems it's all about her!

But then what else would you expect from a senator!

 

And nothing about what the subject matter being discussed. At least Dianne replied within context. Boxer gave a form reply because she "gives a damn!"

[rtrski 20]

Call me Senator damnit! I worked hard for this title! Memememememememme!!!

 

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/...-me-madame.html

Edited August 7, 2009 by rtrski