Re: Dead Fish

[Brian W. Darvell]

Hi,
        So, it would seem that far from be willing to enter a debate, as you implied, you accuse me of having a closed mind - and a republican, to boot!  Did I not say that I was willing to be convinced?  Far from reasoned exchanges, you are the one who has decided it is a waste of time, you cannot cope with evidence, and you are the one that resorts to name-calling and profanity. 

        You see, CITES is a political organization - science plays very little part, as scientists report to me who try to achieve something through this means know: it is the only mechanism that politics has permitted, and it is extremely frustrating - the science is ignored.  Likewise, USFWS is a political organisation - it cannot be anything else, given its funding.  One can have little confidence when the government of the day controls conservation policy.  The vote potential is all that counts.

        It is noteworthy that you will not even consider replica teeth, presumably on the grounds that the rarer the species, the higher the price for the real thing.  Self-fulfilling?    The odd thing is you would probably sell more if you did do decent replicas instead of the real.

        Anyway, as I said before, I care not a jot about your beliefs - so long as they do not affect others, since they all appear to be pernicious.  Plain for all is that your beliefs, attitudes and behaviour do affect - badly - many others, directly or indirectly, be it ever so remote.

        You are an object lesson for all in the conservation movement, whatever their focus.  The usual treatment for a rotten limb or organ is to cut it out.  Sadly, this is not an option here.  We shall continue to do what we can.  Just be aware that you are reviled.

BWD


At 2008-09-19 21:31, you wrote:
====================================================

I can only reply with the same I sent to your worldly partner
 
You are correct, it would be worthless to suggest that I sell replica teeth. As for you attitude on both the science backed CITES and the passion backed USFWS, You are what I would consider a closed minded republican. We are all entitled to our opinions, and just like assholes, we all have one and they ALL stink!
I will end my time wasted on you and your worldly partner on this note. Your comment about your friends eating establishment is hopefully without warrant, as I would hope that we, as people would respect other peoples beliefs. As absurd as that might seem to you, it is what will keep us alive and relatively happy in today's world.
bob

Hi,
        Thank you again for explaining so clearly your thinking, or lack of it.  I suspect that nobody will be surprised by your selfishness.  Your marvellously constructed diatribe should be required reading in schools, but not for reasons that would please you.

        One thing, you clearly do not understand what CITES is about.  It is commonly used as an argument in matters like this by such as you, but it should be recognized that it is a political organization with precisely your agenda: exploitation, with an attempt at spin to throw sops to those with deeper concerns.  Failing to recognize this indicates lack of research, not its opposite.  It is all about what people can get away with, not what should be done. 

        As for the history of US government departments in preventing environmental damage, let's just say they are not a providing any role models.  Remember the US shark fishery, predicated on making money out of shark fins?  Remember the collapse that occurred, quite predictably, in shark populations all around the USA?  Remember the belated "oh, that wasn't so smart was it? - let's reverse our decision and protect sharks"? 

        Oh, and the Red List:  DD is an indication of our ignorance, not a licence, while the LC species are not of a great deal of interest to the trophy-minded. 

        For facts, look at the catastrophic falls in populations that have occurred in the last 30 years, say, and compare this with the documented take; there is a link.  The consequences are becoming apparent.  You are part of the problem.

        You will, I think, not understand that I do not care a fig for you or your kind.  You can do what you like to create the illusion of happiness in your own mind, what there is of it, provided it has no effect on anybody else.  I knew from the outset what your response was likely to be, but I left open the faint possibility that (even with several drinks) you could reason your way out of a wet paper bag.  Alas, it was not to be.  You did not rise to the challenge; all we got was yet another rant.  But what I do care about is that you poison the minds of the ignorant with your unpleasant attitudes.  I do care that your selfishness affects millions of others, who - by very the nature of your politics - do not count for anything, so long as you have your tuna sandwich.  Is that really your measure?  "For a better planet" -  who are you trying to fool? - only yourself, it would seem.  I shall not waste my time addressing any of the other points you so carefully marshall.

        Frankly, I am ashamed that people like you even exist.

BWD     


At 2008-09-19 12:05, you wrote:
====================================================

Since both of you like to quote dictionary, let's use a definition of endangered from the a source that should be recognised as knowledgable in the business of endangerment ... ie ..USFWS ...
Endangered Species: any species in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range.
There are 138 fish Species listed under this heading, none of which are sharks or rays.
TESS : Threatened & Endangered Species System
 
Next, Let's  assume that you do not subscribe to the fact that a governmental department can be trusted with scientific knowledge.. If so, how about the ....
 
IUCN RED LIST
All commercially fished species are rated either
DD or LC
 
Still not happy????  How about
CITES??
Of over 350 known species of shark, Only 3 are listed, and even then, they are listed as CITES Appendix 2 which still allows international trade.
 

CLASS ELASMOBRANCHII
(SHARKS)

LAMNIFORMES

Cetorhinidae Basking shark

 

Cetorhinus maximus

 

Lamnidae Great white shark

 

Carcharodon carcharias

 

ORECTOLOBIFORMES

Rhincodontidae Whale shark

 

Rhincodon typus

 
 
Two of the above groups are the laws which we work with and live by. 
I don't like to group "people like you" as "people like you" However, you are not alone in your rhetoric. I have no need for your, or anyone else's acceptance or disdain. Your support or dislike of my business means nothing to me. If you really want to know my views on the world, the future, extinction, and mans dominion over the rest of the plant and animal world, then read on and weep!
 
I'm in my mid 50's and have approached the time in my life where the most important things in MY life are MY comfort and MY happiness! (as well as my family's, and those who I see fit to care about!) I've fought all the important battles in my youth, and recently had an awakening. My new motto is "FUCK THE DOLPHINS, I WANT MY TUNA FISH SANDWICH!  I thank the world every day that species become extinct. You too should join me in this, as I'm quite sure that you would not be happy if you worried every day that you might be eaten by a T Rex. Man is the dominate species on this planet, and with that comes the privilege of being on the top of the food chain. Sadly for the sharks, chickens, pigs, cows, corn, and carrots ... they cannot compete. There again, you should be grateful. As our planet gracefully evolves into whatever it will become next, I am assured that unless we stupidly blow ourselves into another dimension over hatred and religion, we should do quite well for the next few thousand or so years. After that.... Who knows, and why should we care? How can I say that? We get one ride on this merry go round called life, and we should make it as pleasant as possible for ourselves.
 
Now, Mr. Hermanus (I've forgotten your name) you and your partner from the other side of my world chastise me for selling shark jaws, leather and the like. Do you two proclaim to know the business of shark parts? It seems to me that you should learn a bit more before you pass judgement (not that I, or any of the others in my profession could care less about your judgement) Your own Natal Sharks Board approached me about 10 years ago, and offered me shark teeth to sell! And if you look below, an excerpt from their own site:
 

Natal Sharks Board has a large auditorium and display area for a visual show, shark dissections (not to be missed!) and static displays.

This programme is aimed at educating school children and the general public about safe swimming practices as well as the biology and ecology of sharks. An exciting, entertaining and educational experience! The audio-visual programme, capturing the drama of the ocean and vigour of the NSB staff as they carry out their daily servicing of the nets, is spectacular, providing information of the sensory biology of sharks and their role as top predators in the marine food chain. You are afforded the opportunity to watch a shark analysis and see and smell the internal machinery of one of the ocean’s most tremendous predators.

The Natal Sharks Board supports and promotes the conservation of sharks. Its staff act as consultants throughout the world and are willing to advise anyone with a shark attack problem.

So, let me get this straight ... It's OK for children to watch a shark dissection, and smell the internal organs of this fish, but it's not OK to wear a nice shark tooth around their necks.

We all should make our own choices in this world, I'm sure the other beasts we decide to feast on are not happy about this. But I'm ecstatic over the fact that the shoe is not on the other foot, because as we all know, if the sharks were to rule the earth, they would have our teeth around their necks, Our skulls in their gift shops, and laugh at the "Human Huggers" who will worry about OUR extinction!

Yours for a better planet if we stop being so judgmental.

BOB

Hello again,

        I'm glad to be able to continue this debate.

At 2008-09-19 08:03, you wrote:
====================================================

Jean-François Avenier and BWD,
 
I am always up for a lively discussion, but usually I would ask for a few ground rules,

- and they would be?    Several of those of normal discourse were broken in your initial response, and again in the second. 

AND if either of you have open enough minds to see the possibility of your being wrong.

Did I not say I was?

That said, give me an hour to eat my dinner, drink my martini, and watch the entertainment media disguised as news, and settle down from a day of delivering the "Plunders" of the planet that I sell on a daily basis!

Your choice of word, not mine.

And by the way .... A "rant" is also defined as a civil speech that expresses ones beliefs.

Where, pray tell?

Not the definition that you have sent me! We can excuse THAT misunderstanding as colloquial  (local)  meanings of words.

You will recall that it was you who said

"who without knowledge rant at others"

which is fully in the context of the OED definitions, and bears no relation to he 'civil speech' interpretation applied above.   It would be a first to be accused, as if this were to be condemned, and following an extremely deprecatory epithet, of being civil in the manner in which I express myself.  Curious.  Misunderstanding?  Have I really misread your praise of me and my style so badly?

And Jean, I have been to your town recently and found no shortage of shark or good fish.... I ate in a local place in a cave on the water. More on that after a drink or two

This will be interesting, given alcohol's place in oratory, and it's fame in clarifying arguments.

I await enlightenment.

BWD

Cheers!
BOB

Hi,
        Bob is it?  Good to get into a rational discussion.
        
        You make a number of assumptions, and make a very serious claim that (to my knowledge and understanding) is not supported by the accumulating weight of actual physical evidence.  I can surmise, and only surmise, mind you, that you are entirely unfamiliar with the literature and not up to date with the reports that we hear on a nearly daily basis.

         Illiteracy: please re-read your initial response, and indeed the second. 
        Lack of knowledge: out of the mouths ...
        Time researching:  bad assumption.
        Rant: see below.

        But, enough banter; the key phrase seems to be   "others who make their living from the planet". Is that not the whole point?  The fact that you are asserting your implicitly-supposed 'right' to exploit regardless of consequences demonstrates  the kind of thinking that leaves us fearing for the survival of humanity at all.  The short-term view, i.e. your profit, is more important than whole ecosystems, and the millions who depend on them for their sustenance.

        Even so, I am prepared to sit at the feet of the master: please, show me how it is that "sharks are not endangered".  In my business, I have to keep an open mind and revise my thinking according to the evidence.  I am willing to be convinced. Now is your chance.

Thank you.

BWD


From the OED2:

rant, v.

 1. intr. (or with it). To talk or declaim in an extravagant high-flown manner; to use bombastic language.

    b. To storm or scold violently. Const. at, against. Obs.

    3. trans. To utter in a declamatory and bombastic manner; to mouth. Also with out.

    Add:    [1.] c. To speak or discourse vehemently, intemperately, or wildly; freq. with on (implying duration) or const. at (a person), about (a subject), to ‘go on’ (at one about something). Also in phr. to rant and rave.


        


At 2008-09-18 01:32, you wrote:
====================================================

IF you were a customer and pontificated the illiterate chastising you sent, I would indeed send you the same response! No nerves touched here, just an intolerance for assholes who without knowledge rant at others who make their living from the planet. Sharks are not endangered. If you spent the same amount of time researching as you do sending unwarented emails, you might find the truth!
BOB
 
 
 
In a message dated 09/17/08 09:10:43 Eastern Daylight Time, hrd...@hkucc.hku.hk writes:

Hi,

 Many thanks for the prompt reply.

 But, gosh!  Did I touch a nerve or what?

 Clearly, you are an example to us all for your eloquent, educated style.  You

have taken a great deal of trouble to impart to me - and the world - the basis

of your position.

 I do hope you are as polite to all your customers.

 I think I have made my point.

Thank you again for the illumination.

BWD

==============

Quoting CFrie...@aol.com:

> FUCK YOU!  Like all uneducated assholes who don't understand the eco  system

>

> of the world, your attempt at eloquism is without substance. Thank the  world

>

> for your existence, and try finding a cause that actually means something  yo

>

> humanity instead of speaking of which you do not know.  

>

>

> Shangri-La // Sharkking.com

> Bob & Joan Friedman

> 1390  North Carpenter Road

> Titusville, Florida USA 32796

> 321-289-4173  Phone

> 321-289-3077 Fax

> 561-951-5639 Cell

> _Shark King Jaws Teeth  Home_ ( http://www.sharkking.com/)

Hi,
        I trust you recognize the contribution you are making to the extinction of sharks by promoting the sale of parts from, and therefore the killing of many endangered species? 

        The sad fact is that, while you make a profit, the stability of ocean ecosystems is being undermined, you devalue apex predators as mere commodities, and you pander to the vanity and ignorance of those with more money than sense or education.

        Really, you cannot claim ignorance of the nature of the business, or its consequences.  I am ashamed of your venality.

BWD