Showing posts from 2017

Response to “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries” D.S. Shiffman & R.E. Hueter, Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138–140

This rebuttal, in the form of a formal letter, was submitted to Elsevier's Board of Directors and the Elsevier journal "Marine Policy" on November 19th, 2017. So far, the scientific publisher, which claims scientific neutrality, has chosen to continue to support the shark finning racket, much of which is in criminal hands, and which is responsible for the swift decline of shark populations worldwide, towards extinction. 
Ideas that are blatantly contradicted by the evidence, even when politically welcome, should not be given credibility by scientific publishers, which have the duty to humanity to remain objective. Otherwise, they permit unethical lobbies to launder information the same way that criminals launder money. In the case of sharks, it is particularly reprehensible that shark scientists are proving to be the greatest enemies of these unusual and highly evolved animals, which are not being studied in depth because of the way Fisheries has taken control of them.


Rebuttal to Shiffman and Hueter, Shark Finning Fisheries Lobbyists

"The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act"is considered to be vital in the fight against shark finning. Yet shark fisheries lobbyists David Shiffman and Robert Hueter are doing their best to block it. They have published a paper opposing the legislation, which has been echoed by the press in ways suggesting that banning the shark fin trade in the United States could be "bad for sharks."
But their short and vacuous paper gives only three reasons to support their position and concerns itself with the well-being of shark fisheries, not sharks.  Firstly, they state that passage of the Act will "undermine decades of progress made towards ensuring sustainable shark fisheries in the United States and around the world." But in the absence of any evidence or reasoning in support this allegation, it remains nothing more than an opinion. The statement is neither scientific nor relevant to the real issue.
The second reason given is that the legislation "will likely have…