Hong Kong Disneyland shark fin soup controversy

Hong Kong Disneyland takes environmental stewardship very seriously and we are equally sensitive to the local cultures. It is customary for Chinese restaurants and five-star hotels to serve shark's fin soup in Hong Kong, as the dish is considered an integral part of Chinese banquets. At Hong Kong Disneyland, shark's fin soup will only be served to our guests at private functions on special request.

Kym Murphy, senior vice president of corporate environmental policy for Disney, sits on the Board of Trustees for the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, an American marine protection organization

Dear Mr Eisner, Since Sylvia Hui's editorial in The STANDARD on 18 May 2005 - "Disneyland weddings for the young and wealthy..The menus feature traditional Chinese banquet delicacies such as roast suckling pig, shark's fin soup and sliced abalone", you would have received hundreds of pleas at a global level to remove the gruesome item from the menu. We are disappointed at the response or lack there of to the issue; it is apparent that shortsightedness or plain ignorance from your banquet and PR staff. By promoting and offering shark fins soup, DISNEYLAND is seen as supporting the culling of sharks, eventually causing their extinction in the world's oceans. Imagine shark fins to be the hand and legs of Mickey Mouse; chop them off and throw the lame struggling body of Mickey on the side walk to die a slow painful death!. That is how sharks are harvested from the world's oceans. Please consider the following: 1. In the minute it takes you to read this letter almost 200 sharks will have their fins removed while still alive and thrown back into the sea to die. Shark experts estimate that 100 million sharks are slaughtered each year for their fins. 2. Shark fin is tasteless and has no nutritional value - they are cartilage, just like your fingernails and hair. 3. It is Cruel to consume shark fin - it is akin to chopping legs off cow and throwing them back into the field and allowing them to bleed to death. 4. Because of the demand from Asia, fishermen from Galapagos are now pushing for wholesale revisions to the fishing statute by demanding a year-round fishing calendar, use of long-line fishing, a lifting of the prohibition on shark fishing. In this respect, the Asian culture are threatening to destroy one of the most unique and fragile eco-systems remaining on this planet. 5. Sharks reproduce very slowly and we are killing them faster than they can replace themselves. Sharks have slow growth rates and do not reach sexual maturity for years. It takes a whale shark 25 years to reproduce. For hammerheads and Tiger sharks it takes 15 years. Once sexually mature sharks have long gestation periods with the embryo developing in the mother for up to two years. 6. Sharks are vanishing from our world's oceans very quickly - the demand for shark fin soup in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and China is primarily responsible the peril of sharks globally - some 100 million animals are killed every year just for their fins. To conserve sharks and the preserve the species, we must address the issue at the heart of the problem; we must reduce the demand for shark fins in Asia. Since 2001, OceanNENvironment and Asian Geographic have launched the 'Say No to Shark Fins" Campaign on an annual basis targeting at young couples and children. Instead of supporting conservation, DISNEYLAND HONG KONG is now contributing to the extinction of sharks, promoting cruelty and wastefulness to children and young adults. Since many shark species are protected, DISNEY is therefore seen as encouraging the sale and consumption of endangered species. In this aspect DISNEY is promoting to children and young people a message that cruelty and exploitation of animals is acceptable. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. We respectfully suggest the following actions: Admit the shortsightedness and instead support the conservation of sharks by removing shark fins soup from wedding banquet and replace with other more sustainable delicacies. Since 2002, OceanNEnvironment and Asian Geographic have produced a card/letter package " WHY WE ARE NOT SERVING SHARK FINS SOUP TONIGHT?" for couples to distribute at their wedding dinner - perhaps you may wish to consider this as an option - by doing this DISNEYLAND and prospective wedding couples will be seen as intelligent, eco savvy most importantly contributing to the preservation of our ocean environment. I trust that you will respond expediently. Imagine the next edition of Asian Geographic with Mickey Mouse struggling in agony without his arms and legs on the cover. Get the picture? Michael AW Chairman, OceanNEnvironment Australia Publisher, Asian Geographic : Scuba Diver Australasia: Underwater Channel Publisher Asian Geographic Magazine Scuba Diver Australasia http://www.asiangeographic.org http://www.scubadiveraustralasia.com

There are many shark conservation organizations out there. You might like to see http://www.sharktrust.org/ and http://www.sharks.org/news/050518.htm The English Schools Foundation in Hong Kong, through their Enviroment Committee have picked this up. Children will now be debating the apparent attitude of Disney, the role of unsustainable traditions in a changing world, and the conservation of sharks. 

IUCN Resolution 3.116 refers to the practice of shark finning and recommends means to promote the sustainable management of shark fisheries; encouraging diners to question the sustainability of fin harvest for soup; and to encouraging consumers to make responsible dining choices. The US accepted this resolution.

The HK Government ... has been remarkably quiet. This is not a surprise since it has yet to work out where it stands on such issues. On the one hand, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department has a number of roles, including: Nature Conservation and Country Parks Aim The aim is to conserve flora, fauna and natural habitats, including marine habitats; to manage country parks, special areas, marine parks and marine reserves; and to control the international trade in endangered species of animals and plants in Hong Kong. But then, they have "a view to maximising yields" as part of their primary function.

Curiously, the "Endangered Species Advisory Committee" has as a "Non-official Member", one Mr. CHIU Ching-cheung, who is - Chairman, Sharks Fin Trade Merchants Association - Committee Member, Sharkfin and Marine Products Association Ltd - Proprietor, Kwong Cheung (Shark's Fin) Does he have specialist knowledge about endangered species? I wonder whether we can expect impartial, unbiased advice from him. Are there no rules about conflict of interest?

On the other hand, the HK Tourist Board promotes the consumption of shark fin soup at every opportunity, denies that advertising in this way is promotion, and refuses to accept that it is instrumental in contributing to this destructive fishery. http://www.scdc.org.hk/hongkong/sharkfin.html The Funnies http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_5295Soup A legislator for the catering industry and the president of a restaurant trade group have backed Disney, saying it is being unfairly pilloried and would be a "laughing stock" if it did not offer the dish. Tommy Cheung, the legislator representing Hong Kong's catering sector, said: "I don't believe sharks are an endangered species. Some species of shark may be, but not all shark's fin comes from certain species. There are a lot of species that are plentiful. I am not aware why people are making so much fuss about Disney.

Many restaurants are serving shark's fin, so why pick on Disney?" Cheung said it was unreasonable to expect the theme park to offer Chinese banquets without offering the dish. "Chinese tradition is that you put shark's fin on the table," he said. "If you don't, you are not respecting the guests you invite. It is a matter of face." David Ng, president of the Hong Kong Federation of Restaurants and Related Trades, said that people holding wedding banquets could be made to seem a "laughing stock" if they did not offer shark's fin. "This is the traditional culture of Chinese people, and you can't say it is right or it is wrong," he said. "No Chinese banquet would be complete without shark's fin soup. It is a dish that dates back maybe hundreds of years. You must treat your guests properly," he said. There are several issues here that require a response.

So, both Disney and wedding couples would be a "laughing stock" if shark fin was not available? Not only are you to be decried for failing to serve the chicken soup with bits in, you are to be laughed at as being seriously out of touch with the economic and cultural reality of Hong Kong. The logic of this is difficult to follow. The point seems to be that if one professes care for the environment and conservation one is somehow not reasonable or respectful. I was under the impression it was the reverse. One is meant therefore to uphold an iconic dish as showing respect when the icon stands for mutilation, suffering, waste, failure to propagate, conspicuous consumption, profiteering and crime - without even mentioning conservation. If this is the icon for the marriage that is being celebrated, it will be a sad life indeed. Surely, it is showing more respect for one's guests not to serve endangered species and avoid causing them embarassment? Surely, Disney and wedding parties will be applauded warmly and gain face for standing firm on principles in the face of irrational exhortations to be otherwise.

A further point is the long-established Chinese respect for and seeking after balance with nature. Is that not the point of Feng Shui, of Yin and Yang and cosmic harmony? Is this to be discarded like the shark's body for the sake of a few moments of enjoyment of chicken soup and vinegar? Oh, and it is unfair to single out Disney? Of course, how careless of me. The point is that this example was so egregious that it could not be ignored, but that does not mean we do not sicken every time we see these fins displayed or the menu so embellished. Perhaps we should start a collection of names of hotels, restaurants, cruise liners, banks, clubs, philanthropic organizations, schools, Universities, airlines, conferences, trade dinners, parties...

To me, please, by email, whenever and wherever you find them. If you can do the research and find the principal contacts (email), and any other relevant data, I will collate the information and post it on the SCDC website and circulate it to you all as well. In fact, if you were to write yourself in the first instance, seeking a small menu correction, and report the reponse to me, it would be even better. There, as even-handed as they come. Tommy Cheung's argument in part rests on his belief about the species that are taken and their abundance. However, mere belief in the face of data is difficult to sustain with a straight face.

Why let a good story be spoiled by the truth? Mr Cheung, could I suggest that you refer to the many sources of reliable information before making such absurd remarks. Perhaps you ought to talk to Mr Chiu Ching-cheung, who plainly is an authority in such things - after all, the government of Hong Kong relies on him. Mr Cheung does not understand the fuss. Does he not see contradiction in Disney's apparent stance? Does he not see inconsistency? I can only assume that he has not actually read any of the relevant material, or given thought to what it all means. Sadly, he belittles Chinese intellect by such remarks. "Chinese tradition" in Mr Cheung's and Mr Ng's view is driven by the need for restaurants to make a profit. The last part we cannot disagree with, but the premise is faulty. Is it really the case that consideration for restaurateurs' profits overrides all others? Can he seriously be arguing that something that was acceptable in the past is valid now? Could I therefore suggest that he introduce bills into the Legislative Council for slaves to be employed in restaurant kitchens as they are much cheaper to run; that pigs be permitted to be slaughtered on the pavement outside to ensure that the meat is fresh; and that traditional fertilization of green vegetables be allowed as this will lower costs?

We look forward to cheaper, fresher, healthier meals. On the other hand, I do not hear much of a clamour for the serving of bear paws, live monkey brains, turtles and other such "delicacies". Do our trade representatives not think that these should be reintroduced on cultural grounds? By the way, I am thinking of reintroducing human sacrifice...

Basically, there is no evidence in their remarks, presumably meant to shame Disney into being respectful of the trade's primary drive - profit (and shark fin soup profits are huge!) - of a balanced rational view, respectful of current knowledge, respectful of current attitudes, respectful of learned bodies' resolutions, respectful of the environment, respectful of the need for conservation, respectful of the idea of a sustainable trade. Please, do not talk to me about respect. [/url]

Inauguration I think we ought to recognize those organizations that have made a commitment not to serve shark fin soup. So we hereby inaugurate the Shark Fin Hall of Fame http://www.scdc.org.hk/hongkong/sharkfin_fame.html - a small list that we hope will grow steadily.

Likewise, we have created the Shark Fin Hall of Shame http://www.scdc.org.hk/hongkong/sharkfin_shame.html whose members will no doubt increase with time as well, but who deserve our attention in an attempt to change their ways. Nominations for either are invited, properly documented. Grapevine A friend of a friend in New York reports that Michael Eisner is receiving our emails (despite the bouncing messages), much to his chagrin. So, Mr Eisner, what exactly is the problem? Have you no courage, no moral responsibility to your own environmental PR? Please take the time to read the next item and follow the link. Requiem Just in case you had any doubt about what is happening, read this: [missing, from finns online?] - and notice the inset item: "The Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands in the Pacific Ocean has just adopted a resolution seeking to hunt sharks. The resolution reads in part, “Shark meat and fins are very popular, delicious and expensive food products in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and other areas. (We) could be used as a processing and transshipment station for countries in need of shark meat and fins.”

In need of? Again, pure profit is the motivation. Just like you, Mr Eisner. Moral high ground A caller on RTHK Radio 3 today claimed that it was hypocrisy to go after Disney and ignore the big hotels that serve the soup. I think it is simply an example that strikes a chord with many people, as has has been shown, and thus serves pour encourager les autres. Worry not, they are not being overlooked, but we have to start somewhere. If one is wrong, they are all wrong. Note that the OED has for hypocrisy: The assuming of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclinations,... Does that not characterize Disney to a T? I cannot see that it applies to us, here. Local view

A Cantonese correspondent tells me that, a far as he knows, the problem with shark fin soup has become prominent only since the 1980s. Certainly, it has been on menus before that, but only for the seriously rich; ordinary folks simply could not afford it. Now, with both increasing affluence generally in Hong Kong, and falling prices because the "fishery" effort has increased to profit from the market that has been created, it has been accessible to more. Hence the promotion of the soup as an indicator of wealth and prestige, of conspicuous extravagance. However, he is very clear that he cannot accept the claim by Tommy Cheung and Disney PR people that "A Chinese banquet without shark's fin soup is no banquet." He went on to say that in much of China the attraction of shark fin soup is incomprehensible, but he is concerned that the Cantonese as a whole do not take the blame for a minority problem.

We need to be careful, therefore, that we do not falsely accuse the majority. Naturally, we would not want to do that. Our focus is simply those consumers that drive the market, the organizations that offer it and thus support the market, and the short-term profit motive of those who would drive species to extinction for immediate cash. The majority can do much to help.

BWD http://www.scdc.org.hk/hongkong/sharkfin.html

Confusion On Friday we reported Disney's claims to have reached agreement with WWF on obtaining "friendly fins". However, Eric Bohm wrote a letter which appeared in Sunday's South China Morning Post (June 12, 2005) which reveals Disney's duplicity. I reproduce it here in full because it sums up the difficulties of dealing with this company. They are not open, they are not honest. (The emphasis of para. 3 is mine).

Disney green only in the US? We are deeply disappointed by Disney's ill-advised decision to keep shark's fin on its menu ("Disney seeks WWF's green light for shark's fin suppliers", June 8, and "Shark fin at Disney will come with a sermon", June 10). Disney has lost an excellent opportunity to take the lead as a proponent of sustainable consumption, the only solution available to mankind to preserve valuable marine resources.

In a teleconference with World Wide Fund for Nature Hong Kong and WWF USA last week, Disney USA agreed not to serve shark's fin, either on the general menu or by request, until such time as WWF and Disney are able to identify a certified sustainable source. We were in the process of drafting a joint press release to reflect these discussions. The announcement by Disney Hong Kong comes as a surprise. Is Disney in control of its subsidiary? Disney does not say how its "responsible and reliable" source of supply will be monitored to avoid sharks slaughtered through finning and uncontrolled fishing practices.

We have to wonder which criterion is more important: responsible or reliable? In the context of Disney's commitment to youth and its public pronouncements of concern for the environment, easily accessible from its website, this decision smacks of the grossest hypocrisy.

Does Disney's environmentalism apply only in America? Outside America, do "different cultures" make environmentally unsound practices acceptable? For Disney to offer leaflets to those ordering shark's fin, explaining "environmental concerns", can be compared to a pharmacy offering rhino horn tablets and saying: "We would like to point out that rhino are endangered, but the choice is yours". We strongly urge Disney to reconsider this abhorrent decision.

E. A. BOHM, CEO, WWF Hong Kong

I think Mr Bohm is upset, don't you? So much for trust. This certainly confirms the impression that the HK appendage of Disney has a mind of its own and lacks the Enviromentality bump.

Of course, we should be reassured by Esther Wong, who said that selling the fins wasn't a business issue, as if anyone could believe that! Disney not do something for profit with Mr Eisner at the helm? Maybe I have a solution... Matthew 5:30 advises: "And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Nurse, no anaesthetic ...

Collusion There is a dreadful rumour today that Green Power, who have been called quite a few names elsewhere for "assisting" Disney with their explanatory leaflet, have received one million HK dollars in return. This conflicts with an earlier statement. I hope to be able to report a definitive denial very soon. One can imagine the temptation, but it's that word again. [see below]

Cultural Card

Various reasons why playing the cultural card is morally depauperate have been advanced, but there is a precedent to contradict the claim that it is necessary: ivory. When this was banned, except for local sale of existing stocks, with no export, more or less overnight a huge traditional industry was destroyed. Ivory has long had images of prestige associated with it, and certainly has been part of Chinese culture for a long time - many classical images exist. However, our fearless government (then!), in the face of international pressure, shut it all down. This was managed through various measures, including retraining of the craftsmen, and alternative materials. This was a remarkable, laudable precedent. They had no difficulty then in coping with the defence of people's livelihood by making alternative arrangements.

Now, Esther Wong and Rita Chan, explain to me again why it is essential to promote shark fin soup and environmental destruction? Costa Rican Corruption In principle, some have it right, but are thwarted by higher powers

Just look at the range of the ocean that is being destroyed and weep. Disney, HKTB, HKSAR government - your complicity is culpable. The OED2 has complicity 1. The being an accomplice; partnership in an evil action. I can say no more. Cassandra There have been claims from the trade that there is no problem, despite the evidence. Can we dare to hope that we are not going to suffer here in the same was as is described so well in this: http://www.seashepherd.org

Communication Breakdown

Naively, one would imagine government officers to have a duty of care.

Yet Dr Wong Fook Yee , Assistant Director of AFCD, has made it very plain to a correspondent that e-mails that are longer than a page would not be read on the grounds that only bullet points should be given, and then only four of them, as people only spend 4 seconds reading an e-mail. Now, if this is the fate of all of our careful attempts to explain, it is no wonder the world is in a dire state.

I am sorry, Dr Wong, but life is more complicated than that. If we need to explain the self-evident to those who will not see, it necessarily takes more space than that. If we take the trouble, do you not think we are owed the courtesy of a reading? But then, you haven't got this far, have you? Coverage A few more hits: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Metro/GF13Ak08.html http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_6125Friendly which is remarkable because now a political party has joined in. http://www.mickeynews.com/News/DisplayPressRelease.asp_Q_id_E_695Shark confirms that Disney takes this seriously. Right. A succinct summary of the present position: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Front_Page/GF13Aa01.html BWD

Collusion Confusion - Resolved! Do a Google search on "Green Power" + Disney +shark +fin +soup and, as of June 14th, there are 40-odd English pages found which report the leaflet 'collaboration':

Yet, this same morning the following was sent to a correspondent: "No, Green Power is not responsible for or has not [been] invited to design the leaflet." - L.K. Cheng This followed: "Green Power has not received and will not receive any money from Disney for the production of leaflet. We give them the information of conservation of sharks and shark fins for free. We will not [be] involve[d] in the following production of leaflet." - L.K. Cheng

The confusion is worrying. I have now received clarification as follows: "Yes, we are against the serving of the shark fin soup under any conditions whatsoever at Disney. The issuing of the leaflet is not our focus because our goal is to stop Disney providing shark fins in their service. This is the main point. The information we gave [was] also aiming at this goal. We are not prepared to compromise on this goal. We are against the serving of shark fin soup, whatever issuing of the leaflet or not, or whatever it says.

Our position was clearly stated in South China Morning Post and other international news agency in these few days. That is why I cannot understand the rumour." - CHENG Luk-ki Division Head, Scientific Research and Conservation Green Power This seems clear enough. Remember: "Disney will work with the Hong Kong environmental group Green Power to produce leaflets about the topic, said spokeswoman Irene Chan."

In addition to the media errors, this seems to be another misrepresentation by the fully-autonomous HK element of the Disney organism. Not only do they rat on WWF HK, they attempt to subvert Green Power's advice in an attempted "divide and conquer" manoeuvre. How despicable can you get? Ms. Chan, do us and Disney a favour - resign, and take Esther Wong with you. Campaign Intensification The calls for action are getting louder: http://www.seashepherd.org More background: http://www.seashepherd.org

Dr Wong Fook Yee, Assistant Director of AFCD, has written to apologize for a misunderstanding. His "4 bullets in 4 seconds" remarks in the last Update came from theory promulgated by a management and communication consultant! Evidently this theory was not taken to heart, fortunately, as Dr Wong did read the whole Update - for which effort, my thanks. It just goes to show that ill-considered repetition of trendy formulae can be dangerous. Think for yourself, is all we can suggest.

Dr Wong says: "This does not mean we will not pay attention to long emails. I am sorry for the confusion. Please be assured that we do pay attention to details." I take this to mean that whenever any of us write to him with local marine conservation concerns he will treat it all seriously. I have asked Dr Wong to see if efforts to prevent illegally-obtained shark fins being sold here can be improved. BWD

Painful Reminder Today is about the 1-month anniversary of the open letter to Disney politely requesting a simple change to a menu: http://www.scdc.org.hk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Item... We still have not heard an acknowledgement or a sensible word from Disney: only silence, delaying tactics, obfuscation and cheating. Rather rude, I call it.

Kym Murphy asked for patience - explain why, if you can, Mr Murphy. I was hoping for something a liitle more prompt in the way of real communication. If you cannot fulfill the explicit moral obligations of your post - whether through personal ineffectiveness or Disney management pressure - and live up to your title, you might as well resign as well. It does you no good to be associated with them. The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation  must be somewhat embarrassed by this - and they have not said a word either. I wonder why?

Principles "At The Walt Disney Company, we alone are responsible for upholding our excellence and our integrity. This means acting responsibly in all our professional relationships, in a manner consistent with the high standards we set for our business conduct." - Michael Eisner, Chief Executive Officer - Bob Iger, President and Chief Operating Officer http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/corporate_responsibility.html Sorry, come again? That's Mr Eisner and Mr Iger alone? Can we discuss the meaning of the words "responsibly", "all", "consistent" and "standards", please? We must be working from different dictionaries.

Dominos

I hate to say this, but I think I was right. Yesterday I mentioned a speculation (cynic that I am) - it was immediately followed by a report that it is indeed Selina Chow that has been urging Disney HK not to yield. In addition, the word is that "two big bosses" from the US parent have been doing exactly the same thing. They wouldn't happen to be Messrs Eisner and Iger, would they? What is going on? Selina I can understand, just: she is a politician, and appears to have the following endearing attributes: she cannot admit to being wrong, has no conscience, no morals, no sense of civic duty, no functional arguments - only trite formulaic responses that do not bear scrutiny, no willingness to discuss, and is afraid of being to seen to have principles that extend beyond immediate personal benefit (i.e., political survival). If so, she clearly has no sense of the overall value of Hong Kong in the long term, let alone global resources.

But why is Disney US so duplicitous? Entering into negotiations with WWF and Green Power (only to rat on them, as it turns out), while secretly saying 'ignore it', is just mind-boggling.

You know, I would love to be proved wrong. Anybody got the guts? Let's get this clear: supporting a trade that depends on illegal activity is collusion and culpable. Accomplices to crimes deserve prosecution. How do you sleep, Selina, unless you have no conscience whatsoever? I dare you: prove me wrong.

Boycott

Further to my summary, a fuller list of Disney companies can be found at [gone, 2008] - and there is a Disney credit card, every use of which gives them money. Best not. Contacts People are finding it extraordinarily difficult to find addresses for key people. Why do they hide so? As far as we can tell, this is the main one: The Walt Disney Company 500 S. Buena Vista Street Burbank, CA 91521 USA Key email addresses are in the header. Any other intelligence gratefully received.

Petition I am attaching a petition form for you to use if you see fit. It is also available here: http://www.scdc.org.hk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=67 The general idea is to print a copy, with as many name-list pages as you need, pass it around at your office, club or school, and then send the completed sheets off to Mr Eisner for his consideration.

If you do send such a petition, a note of the number of signatures to me would be appreciated. That way we can keep track. Numbers from other petitions could also be mentioned - it's all the same. We'll post a grand total from time to time.

Ocean Park

Suzanne Gendron makes a very important point in the last paragraph of her open letter: [posted above in this forum] Sharks are one of the apex predators in the ocean. This means that they are at the top of the food chain. They fulfil a very important role as such. Other creatures in the ocean that are sick or genetically weak will be the first marine animals attacked by sharks. By doing this, they help to prevent diseases spreading rapidly through a school of fish and keep the fish strong. It is important to us as we compete for the fishes as consumers. If a disease should kill an entire population, it not be good for any of us. We need sharks. Coverage - just goes on increasing: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/15/business/shark.php http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/business/worldbusiness/17shark.html?ex=1119672000&en=a2ea8499f53942a6&ei=5070&emc=eta1 And watch out for the (UK) Sunday Times Travel section, June 19th ... Thanks to all my correspondents, your contributions are much appreciated. BWD http://www.scdc.org.hk/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=0&Itemid=82

Attn: Mr Michael D Eisner, CEO The Walt Disney Company 500 S. Buena Vista Street Burbank, CA 91521 Dear Mr Eisner I hope you are well. If you check the following link [was to Sea Shepherd store] You will see that Sea Shepherd have produced some delightful T-shirts - and I've ordered one for you! However, not knowing you personally, I ordered you a "large" so please let me know if that is incorrect. These things are very easy to change on-line, creditcard payment makes these things so easy, doesn't it. The front of this T-shirt features a colourful depiction of “Mickey Louse” and “Donald Sucks” preparing a bowl of shark fin soup. The back features the Sea Shepherd logo beneath a de-finned shark.

The shirts are on order now and will be shipped in approximately 3 weeks. As I'm sure they'll be very popular with the millions of people who do have a basic understanding of marine ecology, you might want to reserve some for your friends, colleagues, associates and family? The price is US$18:00 plus US$4:00 shipping within the USA - but they do ship overseas too. In addition Mr Eisner you'll be thrilled to hear that when you receive the present that I have bought for you - you will also receive an educational brochure on the devastating effects of shark finning and what "you" can do to help us stop it.

Oh - those are my "quote" marks Mr Eisner because, by this point in time, YOU know what YOU can do to help stop it ... don't you? Shirt: Stop Shark Finning T-Shirt SKU: shr-052 The front of this Anti-Shark Finning T-shirt features a colourful depiction of “Mickey Louse” and “Donald Sucks” preparing a bowl of shark fin soup. The back features our Sea Shepherd logo beneath a de-finned shark.

With the purchase of each T-shirt, you will receive an educational brochure on the devastating effects of shark finning and what you can do to help us stop it. Available in short-sleeve, white, and made of 100% organic cotton this T-shirt features the creative, satirical artwork by Sea Shepherd volunteer Geert-Jan Vons. Shirts are on order and will be shipped in approximately 3 weeks. You can reserve yours now! PRICE: $18.00 Regards Annabel Annabel Thomas, Director AquaMarine Diving - Bali (PADI R6344) Correspondence Address: PO Box 2098, Kuta, Bali 80361, Indonesia Office Address: Jl Raya Seminyak 2A, Seminyak, Bali 80361, Indonesia Phone: +62 361 730 107 Fax: +62 361 735 368 Mobile: +62 81 236 588 29 Website: http://www.aquamarinediving.com