Hong Kong's outdoors offers a wealth of subjects to shoot - from hills and islands, to waterfalls and wildlife.
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Hi Joe:
That’s ok; maybe me being over-sensitive anyway.
Summer weather’s real hot n humid for doing much outside; good for swimming n so on. Tho lately, lots of rain and thunder.
Autumn’s better; gets cooler, less humid (but some smog from China).I do some hiking, around HK.
CharlieF, who posts pretty often, does some trips in his fancy boat, inc for offshore fishing (he’s done article on it, under Activities). Maybe he’ll post something about his latest fishing exploits.Would be great if you can get a group from Malaysia to visit. Dunno how much we can organise (unless on paid tour basis), but between us can likely help with info, meet up. I haven’t tried organising anything among members of hkoutdoors – this could be a fine excuse.
Cheers,
MartinI saw outline of Cheung Hok-ming’s planned presentation to Legco. and was sceptical of plans: overall, I thought that seemed aimed at absolving Heung Yee Kuk of responsibilty for env stewardship, and putting onus on govt.
I feel Heung Yee Kuk should play more of a role in this; to me, HYK can seem to be wholly concerned with money – some moves towards helping our natural environment wouldn’t go amiss. (Maybe here there is chance for start; cf Long Valley, where Kuk position seemed to be that rail bridge should be built whatever [and so, money to landowners])
Forther, govt maybe not really up to running so much conservation. For the sites, individual projects may work better – if well planned, managed.
Hopefully, too, not such vast need for conservation, if can establish projects that can bring revenue at same time as protecting environment, such as decent “eco-tourism” [inc nature, cultural tourism]. But, maybe many in HK – inc Heung Yee Kuk – don’t believe in this; we could use some working examples here, not just having to look outside HK for examples.
Post edited by: martin, at: 2005/06/17 11:30
more from Brian Darvell:
Quote:100,000,000 a Year x 1000 Words http://www.scdc.org.hk/hongkong/sharkfin_grisly.html Fresh Fish Epcot has a "dine with the fishes" Coral Reef Restaurant ( http://www.allearsnet.com/menu/menu_cr.htm ) with Brown Shark, Stingray, Grouper, Tarpon, and Green Turtle. Let’s hope they do not do this in Hong Kong with "pick your own" Napoleon Wrasse or grouper, while we are on the cultural sensitivity hook. After all, it is part of Hong Kong’s tradition to eat endangered species caught illegally …Remember Selina Chow’s immortal line: "We must also take into account the need to preserve its traditions and a distinctive culinary legacy." (see letter of 2002/07/11: http://www.scdc.org.hk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=67&Itemid=84 ) – presumably at any cost. Changed your mind yet, Selina? Can you really still believe you were (and still are!) justified in being part and parcel of this nasty trade? An apologist for immoral and criminal activity? Distinctive, alright.
Chinese culture? This culture thing hinges on some sense of it being special, local. Others beg to differ. David Lau, secretary-general of Bangkok’s Association of Shark Fin Restaurants, seethed: "Foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to come to Thailand and say anything they want. This is our culture, and you can’t change it." http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501040531-641219,00.html So much for free speech. However, Mr Lau cannot have it both ways. His association is of about 30 Chinese restaurants. It is disingenuous to suggest that a money-making operation in a foreign land is part of that country’s culture.
Notice that the whole basis of the claim against WildAid was loss of business. Say no more. Get-out I have heard of one recent Chinese wedding where the the bride and groom stood up and announced that they would not be serving shark fin soup at the banquet because it was not environmentally-friendly. This was cool. No-one was upset, no one lost face. This, I am told, is perfectly acceptable, perfectly respectful of guests, and a perfect solution to being thought a cheap-skate – the other possible reason for not spending vast sums of money. How hard is that?
Domino Speculation
Here’s a thought: Disney HK has the HKSAR government as a majority shareholder. Disney HK appear to be behaving as an autonomous organization (that is, taking not a blind bit of notice of the parent company – one would like to imagine to their distress and frustration). HKSAR government does not have the best of records when it comes to dealing with environmental issues – trade comes first, remember. Now, if Disney HK are seen to "capitulate" to the local green groups and gobal opinion on such an issue, it would leave the HKSAR government without a leg to stand on. Businesses all over the territory would have to follow suit and not serve shark fin for fear of the same outcry. The same goes for many other environmental concerns. The one goes, they all go. So, the HKSAR government, in its wisdom (and shareholder majority), whispers in the big black ears: Don’t you dare give way! Act dumb, act offended, act anonymously – but do not act responsibly. So Disney HK’s spokesmen are no more than mouthpieces, mere puppets, for a jobsworth in the HK civil service who has been given instructions by a big wheel. Does that not make sense? Does that not make Esther and Irene look good?
The fight, therefore, is not about shark fin, it is about the HKSAR government being made to act according to its own pronouncements in respect of conservation, sustainability and public education. It would have to take the lead, in fact, a lead that so far has seen lip-service only. So, they bully. They threaten (I wonder what?). They stay publically silent themselves! We have had not one word of response from a government officer addressing the main issues raised in these updates. It seems to me that not one shred of a balancing counter-argument has ever been produced. There is no ambiguous data that could be quibbled over. The world’s experts are unanimous.
Any investigative journalists out there with a Deep Throat of their own who can shed light on this, or prove me wrong? The easiest way, Mr. Murphy
, is to exert your authority – if you have any (I am saddened to have received no communication from you, either). Hall of Fame – has been updated with the addition of Singapore Airlines and Thai Airlines. Old news, but valuable support. You see, guys, it can be done; nothing special to it, just conscience. Boycott Calls for a boycott are increasing. To assist you should you decide to join this, visit http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/overview.html to discover how wide the reach is. You may be suprised at some names. In summary, these include: Disney Studio Entertainment Walt Disney Pictures – including Walt Disney Feature Animation and DisneyToon Studios; Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Miramax Films and Dimension Films. Buena Vista International, Buena Vista Home Entertainment and Buena Vista Home Entertainment International. Buena Vista Theatrical Productions does Broadway musicals. Buena Vista Music Group has four record labels: Walt Disney Records, Buena Vista Records, Hollywood Records and Lyric Street Records. Disney Parks and Resorts Disneyland in Anaheim, California; The Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida; Disneyland Resort Paris; Tokyo Disney Resort; and another 6 theme parks (the 11th is Hong Kong). There are 35 resort hotels and two luxury cruise ships. Disney Cruise Line, DisneyVacation Club, Disney Regional Entertainment runs eight ESPN Zone sports dining and entertainment locations; Anaheim Sports, Inc., oversees Disney’s National Hockey League franchise, The Mighty Ducks. Disney Consumer Products These include: apparel, toys, home décor, books, interactive games, foods and beverages, electronics and fine art. Disney Consumer Products is divided into Disney Hardlines, Disney Softlines and Disney Toys. Disney Publishing includes Hyperion Books for Children, Disney Press and Disney Editions, and the children’s magazine in the USA, Disney Adventures. There are Buena Vista Games, The Baby Einstein Company, Disney Stores worldwide and Disney Direct Marketing, including DisneyStore.com and the Disney catalogue. Disney Media Networks "The Media Networks segment encompasses a vast array of properties on the television, cable, radio and Internet landscape." ABC Television Network includes ABC Entertainment, ABC Daytime, ABC News, ABC Sports, ABC Kids, Touchstone Television. ABC Owned Television Stations operates 10 stations in the USA, ABC Radio owns 72 stations, including Radio Disney, ESPN Radio and ABC News Radio. Media Networks includes ESPN, Disney Channel, ABC Family, Toon Disney, SOAPnet, Walt Disney Television Animation, Fox Kids International, Lifetime Entertainment Services, A&E Television Networks and E! Networks. Buena Vista Television; Buena Vista Television International; Walt Disney Internet Group. But worry not. Life will go on without any of this – read a book (from another publisher). Look for the logo – turn away. I have already heard of a mother who dropped a Mickey Mouse bib like it was poison and went somwhere else. Save your money, save a shark. Data For some more background reading, try: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/redlist2005.html. Anybody have any friends (or friends of friends) in Orlando? Spread the word. Coverage But just in case you though this was going to go away, Mr Eisner, we continue to have increased coverage From Brian Darvell:
Quote:Hi,
Suzanne Gendron [Ocean Park Conservation Foundation] has asked me to pass this to you. As you will see, she has been a little pressed, and managed to get this written at the last minute. I know she has been making efforts to get this resolved.BWD
++++++++++++++
Dear All,
Thank you for sharing this with me and asking for my response. I did receive a copy of this email from Dr. Darvell and can only say that I have not been able to respond sooner as I’ve been swamped here at the Park with the various meetings, reports and duties as Director. I have been following the shark fin stories closely through emails from Brian Darvell and also the paper when I have a chance to open it. As such, I have been able to discuss with Brian and also advocate with my colleagues at Disney in the US.
Ocean Park has had a policy that predates my arrival in 1998 to not serve shark fin soup. We still feel strongly that there is not a sustainable shark fishery presently and that the level and intensity of shark fin fishing is pushing the sharks quickly towards extinction. It is due to this fishing industry that the landmark inclusion of whale sharks and basking sharks have been added to the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) Appendix II list. There is evidence that suggests that the whale shark population found off of the Philippines is the same as is found in the Sea of Cortez between Baja California and mainland Mexico. As such, they must be protected on a global scale.
Shark reproduction is not like the teleost (bony, more advanced evolutionarily) fishes. Teleosts are for the most part, extremely fecund animals (meaning they have a high reproductive rate, which they accomplish through the production of thousands of eggs). Sharks on the other hand, have reproductive strategies that are more similar to mammals; fewer young and longer gestation. This is true for even those sharks that lay eggs. As such, they cannot be fished at the level of intensity that the teleost fishes are being fished. And even those cannot sustain the level of fishing we see presently. Over 70% of our fisheries are overexploited and the others are fully exploited. We need to manage our resources more wisely if we are to see them survive.
While it is very difficult to obtain good data on a global fishery without a collaborative effort by many throughout the world, there is strong evidence that the number of sharks has dropped dramatically in the past twenty years. Fisheries studies which support the CITES application for the whale and basking shark can be cited as well as fishermen’s anecdotal stories of the difficulties they have finding the sharks, the smaller sizes of sharks being caught and the fewer species.
Conservation is the wise use of our resources in order to ensure that they are here for a long time. In addition, whenever animals are involved, they should be dealt with in a humane manner. Like the swordfish fisheries in the late 90s, we must give the sharks a chance by not fishing for a few years. Take advantage of that time to study the situation and from the position of scientific data, recommend a sustainable level of take for the various shark species used for soup and for meat. We may find that level is zero!
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.
If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am out of the country beginning Wednesday night and will return in two weeks time.
Suzanne
Suzanne M. Gendron
Foundation Director
Ocean Park Conservation Foundation
The Conservation Arm of Ocean ParkEmail from friend of mine, Martin Turner – circulated, inc to Don Robinson of HK Disneyland:
Quote:Hi Have you seen sharks having their fins sliced off and then being thrown back alive into the sea to die? It is quite disgusting. And all for the supposed ‘delicacy’ of shark’s fin soup. As well as being cruel and wasteful, the rate at which sharks are being caught severely threatens many species and entire marine ecosystems.If you’re in Hong Kong, you must have heard that Disneyland here is planning to serve shark’s fin soup at its restaurants. It has accepted that this is a BAD THING to do, eg. by offering to give out leaflets saying so each time the dish is served. But isn’t it a bit late then? Lately, the company has offered to use ‘sustainable’ supplies, but this isn’t practicable, say environmental organisations such as WWF.
This is an issue where, right now, we can make a difference. Disney is susceptible to public opinion, and if it decides to withdraw shark’s fin from its menus, we will be sending a strong signal that this ghastly and destructive practice can be stopped. See this sample protest letter from Animals Asia, and please write to the Disney leaders at the addresses they give: [letter gone now; edited later]
cheers Martin Turner
Latest News HK Outdoors Forum
Further Reading: Shark Finning Faces Broader Sanctions. (11 Dec 2004)
Clipping the fin trade. Science News 162 (Oct. 12):232-234.
______. 2002. No way to make soup—Thirty-two tons of contraband shark fins seized on the high seas. Science News Online (Sept. 7).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. Fact Sheet: Shark Management (Dec. 3). Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sharks/FS_management.htm
Watts, S., et al. 2001. The End of the Line? Global Threats to Sharks. San Francisco: Wildaid. Available at http://www.wildaid.org/PDF/reports/TheEndoftheLine(1).pdf.
For further information about sharks from the Pelagic Shark Research Foundation, go to http://www.pelagic.org. For NOAA’s Shark Web site, go to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sharks/. References: Animals Asia http://www.animalsasia.org 2004.
International commission adopts U.S. proposal for shark finning ban. U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration press release. Nov. 23. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/docs/ICCAT_Conclusion.pdf. 2002. NMFS announces final rule to implement the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. National Marine Fisheries Service press release. Feb. 11. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/shark_finning/fax_fr_shark_f.PDF.
Soto, O.R. 2004. A legal matter of great delicacy. San Diego Union-Tribune (Dec. 6).
United Nations General Assembly. 2004. Sustainable Fisheries Resolution A/59/L.23: 59/25 of the Oceans and the Law of the Sea (Nov. 17): Available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_resolutions.htm.
The American Elasmobranch Society has a home page at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/aes/aes.htm.
two more emails from Brian Darvell:
Quote: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 Quote: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 Hi Lill:
That would be a quite an expedition.
Can hike along Lantau Trail; but would take a fair part of a day, and not advisable in summer heat. (Nor advisable at any time unless you’re fit hiker, esp if up n over Sunset Peak.)
Even following road and/or catchment trail along s hillsides of Lantau, would take several hours – and real tough, even dangerous, in the heat.Martin
Post edited by: Martin, at: 2005/06/10 11:10
Disney is among backers of a project to try and solve Africa’s bushmeat crisis, which is surely based on local traditions (albeit much now illegal): http://www.bushmeat.org Then, says Disney’s website:
Quote:The Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund helps ensure the survival of wildlife and wild places in all their beauty and diversity.Disney is also among sponsors of World Widlife Fund (in US) Windows on the Wild education program;
Quote:In recent years, WOW programs have included: … seminars to help consumers steer clear of harmful wildlife trade;Disney is a co-sponsor of Project Shark Awareness at the Florida Museum of Natural History.
Maybe can expand this project, to Hong Kong? If so, can include info from the scheme, such as:
Quote:In most commercial fisheries shark meat is considered of low value and sharks are often discarded at sea rather than landed at port. Their fins on the other hand are worth quite a lot in the Asian shark fin soup market. This has led a number of fishermen to cut the fins off of the sharks as they come aboard and through their bodies back over board. This way they can land the expensive fins, and save room to land more expensive fish. This practice is very wasteful and often times the sharks are finned and returned to sea while still alive, left to die.Post edited by: Martin, at: 2005/06/09 15:06
Thanks again, Tom.
Seems to me the questions weren’t really answered: no clear “yes” to whether economic need proven.
Interesting that, “the EIA study report will present the reasons for locating the LLP at Siu Ho Wan.”
– this seems wonderfully obedient of authors of EIA study report; when I’d thought EIA studies were about assessing likely environmental impacts of projects, and considering alternatives.Also, the 3-month consultation exercise for Concept Plan seems to mean the public has indeed been consulted re the project. (It would be interesting to survey Hong Kong people, see how many know of this and other projects for Lantau.)
Seems a case of some powerful interests want this; and the environment (and the public at large) be damned.
from Brian Darvell:
Quote: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.
Hi Richard:
Sadly, zero change that I’m aware of.
Lately sent out email to various people, inc Travel Industry Council, bemoaning regulations I think could fossilise travel industry here (as small players will be discouraged; tougher to open business that may be risky, so I suspect will just see companies play it safe, mostly with same old same old).
Email in reply from TIC, w figures showing nos travel agents stable, maybe up a little; and getting newcomers. But, figures say nothing re how many of these newbies are interesting companies, set to offer novel travel products (and how many are geared towards taking mainland tourists to the Peak, Bauhinia Square [haha], gold shops and factory outlets).
Maybe HK Tourism Board shifting a little towards more promotion of greener side of HK; but I haven’t noticed this really impacting HK image promotions (to outside world – and much of HK – this is little but a city with shopping and dining).
Against which, Lantau plans show govt has near zip notions re sustainable development, seems to imagine that can have lots of concrete and eco-tourism too (are eco-tourists such blind fools I wonder?)Anyway, gotta keep on giving it a go; away from bureaucracies (and even within, in a few cases), are people trying for more diverse tourism here – and HK certainly has the natural setting to support this.
Martin
from Brian Darvell:
Quote: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]
Bite-Back is a site on Shark and Marine Conservation;
has a counter for number of sharks killed this year (based on averages I assume) – stands at 41,753,326 and rising fast as I post this.Wonder what the Disney execs make of all the emails; another here:
Quote:Subject: : Shark Fin Soup at Disneyworld – open letter from
OceanNEnvironment Australia
Importance: HighAttention:
Mr. Michael Eisner
Chief Executive Officer, Disney World,Dear Mr Eisner,
That Disney World, Hong Kong has shark fin soup on its wedding banquet
menu is simply unacceptable. If the devastating facts about the losing
battle sharks are fighting to stay alive do not convince you to remove
this senseless item from your menu, then perhaps the fact that you are
making a mockery out of the Disneyland Company and a hypocrite out of
Walt himself will.When it comes to the environment Disney’s stance has always been clear,
“from inception, the Walt Disney Company has been dedicated to
protecting our environment through conservation.” And with $6 million
from the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund going to more than 200
projects it is undeniable that the company does have an “attitude and
commitment to think and act with the environment in mind.”That is until you decided to put shark fin soup on the menu, endorsing
this nutrition-less meal and in doing so contributing to the cruel
slaughter and eventual extinction of sharks. You obviously do not have
an attitude and commitment to think and act with the environment in mind
if you would willingly help remove this apex predator from our oceans.
Who knows what the ramifications on the ecosystem their disappearance
will have. The Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund may as well put the 21%
of the money that goes to marine projects somewhere else, because once
we have slaughtered all the sharks, will the ocean ever be the same?And poor old Jiminy Cricket, how could you make such a mockery of him
and the thousands of children in Hong Kong that take part in Disney’s
Environmental Challenge. How would these primary school children feel if
they knew that the very company that honours them as ‘environmental
heroes’ could not stick to their own pledge to act environmentally in
the community?The only thing you seem dedicated to is perpetuating the cultural value
of shark fin soup. So this delicacy has been eaten at weddings in Hong
Kong for years.who cares? Isn’t Disneyland a culture all of its own
where kids and kids at heart go to escape the real world? Don’t you
advertise these functions as “Disney’s fairly tale weddings?” If it is a
fairytale, why do you have to abide by the cultural norms of any
country?If this is not excuse enough to not have it on the menu, instead of
serving this soup you could give your bride and groom
OceanNEnvironment’s ‘why we are not serving shark fin soup tonight’
cards to give out to all their guests. In doing so both you and your
guests would be acting intelligently with the environment in mind.
Cultures change, all it takes is the courage and determination of a few
to take a stand. But perhaps this courage is just not in you.Walt Disney himself said, “Conservation.is a science whose principles
are written in the oldest code in the world, the laws of nature.” How is
it that you can go against this old code?He also said, “the natural resources of our vast continent are not
inexhaustible,” and he was right, each year more that 100 million sharks
are slaughtered. This culling is occurring faster than sharks can
reproduce. They simply can not keep up.And on a closing note, “but if we will use our riches wisely, if we will
protect our wildlife.these things will last us for generations to come.”
Oh how Walt must be turning in his grave.Shame on you.
Gillian Fagan
Press Officer
OceanNEnvironment AustraliaThanks again for posting, Tom.
Looks like the Lantau projects may start to come under spotlight at last.
Expect plenty of Yes Minister type blather in response. (After all, this “park” was in Concept Plan – which has been discussed, hasn’t it? [Hands up all Hongkongers who know even vaguely what’s in the plan])
