Hunters and Creationists fall into the Grand Canyon

Shannon Wright's anti-hunting series [12 MOST VILE], is slowly but surely working up to a crescendo, one fuelled by the hunters' anger, or is it angst. Since about #6, the hunters have begun to showing signs of serious agitation. As of #5, they have posted it in their own hunting sites and used it for target practice, and none too accurately I might add. Now it is up to #4, and they are hysterically besieging the post with what they consider to be lethal verbal fire, most of which being laughable, if not for the serious fact that the right-hand seats of power in America are almost uniformly occupied by recreational and trophy hunters the likes of Bush, Cheney, Perry, Palin, and now Romney, and whichever running mate he may choose, who will be a hunter, guaranteed. Even Obama, who once jeered at hunters, has been forced to faux-joyously proclaim the new National Hunting Day.

One of the things hunters say is their indignant "How DARE you compare us to serial killers?!" To this I say, "I don't COMPARE you to serial killers, you ARE serial killers. You do kill serially, don't you? Unless you use a bomb to kill many animals with one bang, which would make you a mass killer. And once you stop serial killing, you cease to be a hunter." Their response to my answer is either silence or a change of subject.

And what do they change their subject to? Since they are intellectually and verbally inept, a typical one is call upon the "THOU SHALT KILL" deity-of-their-own-making (no typo) to smash fire and brimstone upon our sinful heads, while ascertaining that "Jesus was no vegan." Be it as it may, my reply is, "I cannot imagine him being a trophy hunters either, can even you?"

Then one of them changed the subject to human history, citing our binocular vision as proof that we were hunters from the very Beginning. My answer is that whether early Homo sapiens began as hunters (-gathers) or not, theirs was Subsistence hunting, out of necessity, a far cry from the "modern" hunters' Recreational and Trophy hunting, "recreational" meaning amusement, pleasure, and in a child's lingo, fun.

"Besides," I add, "binocular vision does NOT necessarily imply hunting. What it does mean is that whatever species in possession of it needs a keen sense of depth perception, such as the primates that live in trees," adding, as a trap, "from which we have evolved," into which he promptly fell by indignantly announcing, "I AM a CREATIONIST!", to which another duly echoed, "Good God! These ANTIs (their supposedly derogatory term for us anti-hunters, in which we take great pride) are Godless EVOLUTIONISTS!!", which brings us to the focus of this blog.

For those unfamiliar with Creationism, a Creationist is one who believes in the literal truth of the Book of Genesis: that the entire Universe, the Earth included, was created in six days about 6000 years ago by a pre-existing deity of unknown and unquestioned origin, that all species were created simultaneously (except ours) in their current form, and that they are immutable, i.e. that they cannot evolve (in keeping with the hunters' own mental stagnation; they even have a T-shirt saying "I DID NOT EVOLVE!" LOL). Therefore, in their view, not only are Evolutionists anti-Bible, they are anti-God. The fact of the matter is that not all Deists are Creationists; in fact, except for the Fundamentalists, who take every word in Genesis as the literal truth, a slim majority of Christians today, even those who believe that God did create the Universe, including Charles Darwin himself of yester-era who began as a Creationist before his famous Voyage-of-the-Beagle, accept Evolution as the means by which creation was achieved, and is still being achieved.

Another hunter interjected, "Science is the Devil's instrument, which spawned the evil concept of Evolution. Look at the great intricacy of nature - how a simple leaf is made up of millions of tiny cells, each performing a complex process called photosynthesis to feed the whole plant - and you claim that this just came about by chance? This alone shows that there is an intelligent Creator God." As Darwin's "bulldog" Thomas Huxley said when Bishop Wilburforce publicly asked Darwin if he claimed his paternal or maternal line to trace back to the apes, "The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands", I replied, "How, pray tell, did you get to know about cells and photosynthesis, if not from science?" Again, silence.

It is pointless to try to explain to these pseudo-intellectual simpleton ignoramus Creationists trophy hunters the vast complexity of Evolution, from the tree of which they thoughtlessly and carelessly puck the most magnificent of fruits, thus dimishing its overall magnificence. So let me use a simple example to illustrate the gross stupidity of their ways, one of which being, "Evolution is only a theory", which it is NOT. Evolution is a FACT proven by millions of pieces of EVIDENCE, all but a few of which the Creationist chooses to ignore, citing them as "the Devil's temptation", while creating their own "evidence" to justify their irrational beliefs.

Here I have to digress slightly to define three words.

The first is "theory". I repeat, Evolution is a proven FACT, species do change with their changing environment, whereas how it happens could be said to be a "theory", until it too has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, when it too becomes fact. When Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace simultaneously and independently advanced the mechanism of Natural Selection, it was indeed just a theory, but so much evidence has been unearthed since then that even this previous theory has also become fact. Natural Selection does happen and happens on a daily basis, and nothing that the Creationists can say or do that can negate this.

The second word is "belief". My favourite definition is "To believe without question is to let others do the thinking for you."

The third word is "evidence", and I'll say what it is not. It is not something one conjures up to justified a preconceived erroneous conclusion.

Speaking of evidence, now back to how Creationists create their own to justify their grossly erroneous beliefs, here is a simple example - the Grand Canyon. In short, one of their claims is that it was created, again within a few days, as a result of a flash flood, one likely associated with Noah's Flood, and the resulting rock layers were laid down in its aftermath, with the fossils sorted by gravity. They further claim, since dinosaur fossils are among the layers, so they believe, that it is proof that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries, just that the dinosaurs all died in the flood, whose remains were deposited in the middle layers, whereas humans, being lighter, floated to the top and survived. And since the entire Universe was just 6000 years old, then the Grand Canyon must be younger than even that. When it suits them, they have no problem ignoring Uranium Dating (which measures on the scale of millions of years), which they habitually confuse with Carbon-14 Dating (which measure on the scale of thousands of years), of neither of which they have the slightest comprehension.

Such a model is of course so full of holes that the Titanic could sail right through it. In fact , there is so little substance in it, if any, that the Titanic would not be able to find anything in it to collide with if it wanted to. But it cannot be lightly dismissed. Almost half of all Americans subscribe to Creationism in one form or another, approximately the same half that still deny that global warming is real. They have so much influence that the display at the Grand Canyon would not even dare to mention its age.

The FACTS about the Grand Canyon are as follows:

When it comes to the age of the Grand Canyon, there are two answers:

1. How long it took to create it: 20 million years ago, the site was just a plateau, with the Colorado River flowing through it. It took the river 6-17 million years depending on the exact location to carve it down to its present maximum depth of approximately 1 mile or 1.6 kilometres.

2. How old the rock layers are: The Grand Canyon comprise 3 rock groups (not of the musical kind:). At the bottom are Pre-Cambrian schist and granite over 1600 million year old. On top of this lie slanted Pre-Cambrian sedimentary rock layers 740-1200 million years old which had been tilted by earlier geological activities. And on top of this lie horizontal sedimentary rock layers the lowest and oldest being of the Cambrian period 525 million years old, rising up to the highest and youngest at the surface pertaining to the end-Permian period more some 250 million years old - before even the first dinosaurs began to exist, much less humans.

So, what does all this leave the Creationists? A total lack of credibility except to themselves, that's what.


Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/Anthony.Marr.001
www.facebook.com/Global_Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.youtube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com
www.AnthonyMarr13.wordpress.com

The CIRCUIT is the MEMORY

Place a few isolated neurons (brain cells) into a petri dish, submerge them in a solution of nutrients, and every time, without fail, they will reach out to each other with axons, touch each other's dendrites, establish synapses, and, lo and behold, a mini-network, or neural circuit, will be formed. (The picture shows only 11 neurons, but the contacts number in the thousands.)

This happens in the brain millions of times every day. We also know that if one loses ones sight, ones hearing would become extra acute, indicating that the brain can "rewire" itself in response to major life changes.

What I'm writing about is my own "theory" of how this phenomenon of neural circuit formation and modification relates to and results in memory, thought and action. I could be completely wrong, or this model could have already been advanced, in which case any neuroscientist out there kindly correct me.

In neural circuitry analysis, the general schematic is that there are 3 general layers: the input layer, the processing layer and the output layer. The input layer receives stimuli from the 5 senses, and the output layer goes mostly to speech and action. It is the middle processing layer I'm talking about.

Let's talk in terms of memory alone. In my view, memory is not some nebulous, mystical or metaphysical phenomenon, but is as physical, chemical and biological as, well, the brain itself.

Memory could be multilevelled in that it could be stored on the molecular, cellular and intercellular levels. It is the intercellular level that I will be concentrating on.

On the intercellular level, i.e. in terms of neural circuitry, in this model, MEMORY IS CIRCUITRY; THE CIRCUIT IS THE MEMORY.

Let me explain:

Neurons are the only cells in the body that do not divide and multiply. The number of neuron one is born with is the maximum number one will ever have, maximum because, on the other hand, neurons can die, and they do so on a daily basis , especially after mid-life. The average number of neurons a human being is born with is about 100 billion, and this number decreases in the brain as one ages. On the other hand, there is almost no limit as to the number of synaptic contacts a neuron can have with its neighbours, far and near. On average, they number about 7000 per neuron. Generally, the more thinking one does and the more experiences one accumulates through life, the higher this number. Einstein, for example, could have 10,000 synapses per neuron, or 20,000, or 30,000, while a recreational hunter doing nothing but serial deer-killing, or some religious fanatic who reads just one book through his life (you know which one), if he reads at all, could have only 1,000, or less.

This also means that even though the number of neurons through ones life may gradually decrease, the total number of synaptic contacts may continue to increase.

In a new born baby, the 100 billion neurons are all there, but the number of synapses per neuron could be near zero. As he grows and learns, the synapses per neuron increases, and neural circuits develop. For example, when he learns how to ride a bicycle, a bicycle-riding neural circuit would be formed, and the more he rides, and develops skills, the more complex and stronger the circuit becomes. Likewise if he develops a bad habit, like smoking, there will likewise develop a smoking circuit, and once the circuit is triggered by some timed means, the urge would arise, and the output layer would cause him to light up another cigarette. In this latter case, if he wants to quit smoking, he would have to actively resist the urge and desist, which brings forth the reverse phenomenon, which is that the lesser he uses the circuit, the more it will atrophy, until finally, the circuit disintegrates, and the urge to smoke eventually dissipates.

This can apply to almost every thing in his life experience. When he hears a song, a circuit of that song would develop, and the more he hears the song, the stronger that circuit becomes, and the better he would remember the lyrics, and the more automatic the output layer can enable him to sing the song.

In this model, memory can be lost in one of two ways: the dismantling of a circuit by decreasing the number of synapses in the circuit, or the death of the neurons involved in the circuit.

This brings us to the unsavory subject of dementia, and the hopeful topic of prevention thereof. According to this model, the more one uses ones brain, in as diverse a range as possible, the larger the number of synapses would be per neuron, and the greater the total number of synapses in ones brain, and the more complex the neural circuitry therein, will result. So, even if a redneck and a renaissance man lose the same number of neurons by the same age, the redneck will be the one to lose his brain function, or lose it first.

So the moral of this model is: USE IT OR LOSE IT!


Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/Anthony.Marr.001
www.facebook.com/Global_Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.youtube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com
www.AnthonyMarr13.wordpress.com

The Coming Probable Collapse of High Tech Cultures

ON THE COMING PROBABLE COLLAPSE OF HIGH TECH CULTURES

We don’t have to wait for global warming to bake us in the inescapable atmospheric oven before we begin to suffer. The collapse of techno civilization will come even sooner, where, in a normal summer afternoon at 50C/122F in the shade, where often there is no shade, you will not be able to run your A/Cs due to prolonged blackouts, and you won’t be able to have even temporary relief with your car’s A/C, because there will be no gasoline to run your car.

This will come abruptly in the not too distant future, perhaps a matter of one or two decades if not mere years, when our ever escalating demand for oil intersects oil’s own geometrical decline. Given that peak oil is long past, while peak demand is still somewhere in the murky future, the crash is inevitable. I have always shaken my head in disbelief when I read about projections saying that by year 2050 we will have cut oil consumption by so many percent. It never fails to amaze me to see people still buying new gasoline cars, when the days of affordable oil, and of oil itself, are numbered.

The oil-price graph will have peaks and valleys in micro-adjustments to supply and demand, but it will be in a generally upward trend due to the ever-rising demand and the ever dwindling supply. And there will come a time when one of these peaks will rise so high as to be unreachable by individuals and corporations alike. Oil companies are deviously inducing consumers to burn as much gas as possible for their maximum short-term profit, but in so doing, they hasten their own demise, alas, along with our own.

When this happens, the energy-dependent societal infrastructures, most notably the transportation system, especially that sector dealing with food distribution, be it in the form of trucks, trains, ships or planes, will all more or less grind to a halt. Grocery store shelves previously brimming with imported food such as spinach from China or bananas from Latin America, will be empty. Gasoline pumps will be dry. Abandoned car will be everywhere, many with keys left in the ignition, and no one will steal them.

Those who are well grounded in the global communication network, such as FaceBook, and cell-phones, should get used to the idea that the World Wide Web will have disintegrated, and they will feel isolated.

When we have fuel and food in the same sentence, something has to give. In the face of severe fuel and food shortage, and they are related, we have to decide on whether to use our drought shrunken crops of soy and corn for food or for fuel (ethanol), and in the case of food on whether the soy and corn should serve as human food or cattle feed, bearing in mind that it take 10-20kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. If the former, the cattle will starve, and if the latter, then while the super-rich will continue munching on juicy steaks, the masses of humans will starve. The sad situation is that even the best scenario is a bad scenario, because there is simply no net-good human action that will result in any good scenario.

Major metropolises such as London, Los Angeles or New York City, and cities that are normally hot and dry, like Las Vegas or Phoenix, will not be pleasant places to be in. Given the stagnation of the food transportation system, most food available will be locally grown, it will be difficult to grow enough food within a large city to feed the entire populace, especially factoring in water shortages. I would not rule out emaciated corpses in the street. Law and order will have broken down and robbing and looting will be commonplace. And when it comes to the dead of winter closing in, many will be frozen to death.

Residents will try to emigrate to surrounding areas, by bicycle or on foot, but where are they to go? Along the miles and miles of hot and dry highways people will drop like flies. And those surviving will overwhelm the surround rural areas. If your family has a small farm on the outskirts of a major metropolis, consider it taken over and you possibly ousted if not killed. I suspect that gun-fire will be a common sound. The murder rate will be by the dozen per day.

There will be areas where the impact will be less severe, which are already serviced by electricity grids centred upon extant large-scale solar and wind installations, e.g. parts of eastern California and central Texas. Bear in mind, however, that most of our day to day commodities are derived from oil, including all plastic products, tires (each car tire requires 7 gallons of gasoline to make), pharmaceuticals, electronics, computers, buildings, and basically everything that requires oil to manufacture (e.g. entire cars). So, once these items have been used up, it cannot be expected that new products will take their place.

This does not necessarily mean that there will be no oil left anywhere in the world, but much of it will be in government controlled storage facilities for the most essential of governmental services, perhaps to the tune of several hundred million barrels in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but the formula is that one billion barrels can feed the current U.S. demand for only 8 weeks. If civilian usage is cut off, it would last longer, but not forever. And a large part of it will still go towards the military against likely oil-grab invasions, or worse, towards invading another country for their oil-in-storage, or whatever oil fields that still remain. Canada, with its still extensive tar sands, for example, will be a prime target, and the Arctic, with its ice cap melted off and its polar oil reservoirs accessible to deep water drilling, as well as its easily accessible methane hydrate deposits on land and on the shallow continental shelves, will likely be a global battlefield.

So, what can the individual citizens do to ensure their own survival? This brings us to the concept of the deep rural green community, which should have the following properties:

1. It should be beyond walking distance from a major metropolis, and topographically easy to defend.

2. It should be water-self-sufficient, i.e. on a river-front, lake-front, or has its own year-round stream or well, as well as enough rainfall.

3. It should be food-self-sufficient, i.e. endowed with a good stock of foundational organic seeds (no Monsanto please!), and enough land to produce enough food for the entire community.

4. It should be energy-self-sufficient, employing renewable energy sources only with on site solar panels and wind turbines, some biofuels, all electric appliances, including electric vehicles, solar cars for long distance travel, and enough batteries to store enough electricity.

5. It should comprise people with a broad range of knowledge and skills, including academic, agricultural, medical and technical.

6. It should be animal-friendly, both domestic and wild.

If you would like to explore this idea further, please like and comment.

Good luck to us all.

Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/Anthony.Marr.001
www.facebook.com/Global_Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.youtube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com
www.AnthonyMarr13.wordpress.com

DEEP RURAL GREEN COMMUNITY, anyone?

DEEP RURAL GREEN COMMUNITY, anyone?

Why? We don't have to wait for global warming to bake us in the inescapable atmospheric oven before we begin to suffer. The collapse of techno civilization will come even sooner, where, in a normal summer afternoon at 50C/122F in the shade, where often there is no shade, you will not be able to run your A/Cs due to prolonged blackouts, and you won't be able to have even temporary relief with your car's A/C, because there will be no gasoline to run your car.

This will come abruptly in the not too distant future, perhaps a matter of one or two decades if not mere years, when our ever escalating demand for oil intersects oil's own geometrical decline. Given that peak oil is long past, while peak demand is still somewhere in the murky future, the crash is inevitable. I have always shaken my head in disbelief when I read about projections saying that by year 2050 we will have cut oil consumption by so many percent. It never fails to amaze me to see people still buying new gasoline cars, when the days of affordable oil, and of oil itself, are numbered.

The oil-price graph will have peaks and valleys in micro-adjustments to supply and demand, but it will be in a generally upward trend due to the ever-rising demand and the ever dwindling supply. And there will come a time when one of these peaks will rise so high as to be unreachable by individuals and corporations alike. Oil companies are deviously inducing consumers to burn as much gas as possible for their maximum short-term profit, but in so doing, they hasten their own demise, alas, along with our own.

When this happens, the energy-dependent societal infrastructures, most notably the transportation system, especially that sector dealing with food distribution, be it in the form of trucks, trains, ships or planes, will all more or less grind to a halt. Grocery store shelves previously brimming with imported food such as spinach from China or bananas from Latin America, will be empty. Gasoline pumps will be dry. Abandoned car will be everywhere, many with keys left in the ignition, and no one will steal them.

Those who are well grounded in the global communication network, such as FaceBook, and cell-phones, should get used to the idea that the World Wide Web will have disintegrated, and they will feel isolated.

When we have fuel and food in the same sentence, something has to give. In the face of severe fuel and food shortage, and they are related, we have to decide on whether to use our drought shrunken crops of soy and corn for food or for fuel (ethanol), and in the case of food on whether the soy and corn should serve as human food or cattle feed, bearing in mind that it take 10-20kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. If the former, the cattle will starve, and if the latter, then while the super-rich will continue munching on juicy steaks, the masses of humans will starve. The sad situation is that even the best scenario is a bad scenario, because there is simply no net-good human action that will result in any good scenario.

Major metropolises such as London, Los Angeles or New York City, and cities that are normally hot and dry, like Las Vegas or Phoenix, will not be pleasant places to be in. Given the stagnation of the food transportation system, most food available will be locally grown, it will be difficult to grow enough food within a large city to feed the entire populace, especially factoring in water shortages. I would not rule out emaciated corpses in the street. Law and order will have broken down and robbing and looting will be commonplace. And when it comes to the dead of winter closing in, many will be frozen to death.

Residents will try to emigrate to surrounding areas, by bicycle or on foot, but where are they to go? Along the miles and miles of hot and dry highways people will drop like flies. And those surviving will overwhelm the surround rural areas. If your family has a small farm on the outskirts of a major metropolis, consider it taken over and you possibly ousted if not killed. I suspect that gun-fire will be a common sound. The murder rate will be by the dozen per day.

Which brings us to the concept of the deep rural green community, which should have the following properties:

1. It should be beyond walking distance from a major metropolis, and topographically easy to defend.

2. It should be water-self-sufficient, i.e. on a river-front, lake-front, or has its own year-round stream or well, as well as enough rainfall.

3. It should be food-self-sufficient, i.e. endowed with a good stock of foundational organic seeds (no Monsanto please!), and enough land to produce enough food for the entire community.

4. It should be energy-self-sufficient, employing renewable energy sources only with on site solar panels and wind turbines, some biofuels, all electric appliances, including electric vehicles, and enough batteries to store enough electricity.

5. It should comprise people with a broad range of knowledge and skills, including academic, agricultural, medical and technical.

6. It should be animal-friendly, both domestic and wild.

In the United States, there are many regions that would suit such communities. Where I am located, the Pacific Northwest, with its mild oceanic climate and plentiful rainfall, is near ideal.

I am serious considering forming such a deep rural green community, and now is always a good time to start. Anyone interested, please like and comment, and/or message me. I am no longer day-dreaming. I am wide awake to reality, and ready for action.

Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/Anthony.Marr.001
www.facebook.com/Global_Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.youtube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com
www.AnthonyMarr13.wordpress.com

3 Richmond Review articles on SHARK FIN BAN + 36 comments + 2 videos

"All credit go to Marley Jean Daviduk, founder of the Vancouver Animal Defense League, for organizing the Richmond and Burnaby events." - Anthony Marr


---------------------------------------------------


SHARK FIN BAN GAINS MOMENTUM IN METRO CITIES

A campaign to stamp out the use of shark fins by Chinese restaurants is quickly gaining steam across Metro Vancouver.

By Jeff Nagel - Surrey North Delta Leader
June 28, 2012 5:00 PM

Activists have already persuaded Coquitlam and Port Moody to ban the possession and use of the fins and Burnaby and North Vancouver are expected to follow suit.

Now Vancouver Animal Defence League spokesman Anthony Marr is preparing to go after Vancouver, Richmond and Surrey – cities home to many of the Metro restaurants that serve shark fin soup.

"They're going down like dominoes," Marr said of the cities signing on. "It's going pretty strong."

Seven cities in Ontario, including Toronto, have agreed to bans, but B.C. is the big prize.

By getting smaller communities on board first, Marr hopes to convince councils of the bigger Metro cities to simultaneously sign on to a ban and defuse concerns that affected restaurateurs will flee Vancouver for Richmond or vice-versa.

Marr himself ate shark fin soup as a kid in Hong Kong, but gave it up when he saw how poachers carve the fins off live sharks, which are then dumped back in the ocean to die.

It's not just a tragedy for the slow-to-reproduce sharks.

"If you wipe out the sharks, the medium-sized fish they prey on will proliferate and overfeed on the smaller fish," Marr said. "They will proliferate and the fisheries will most likely collapse. So sharks are very important."

Marr claims plenty of allies in the Chinese community who agree it's time to end a barbaric practice, responsible for the slaughter of about 50 million sharks annually.

But he doesn't try to convert restaurateurs, or their rich clientele who see shark fin as a prestigious delicacy.

He figures sharks will be extinct by the time they come around or are replaced by younger, more enlightened generations of Chinese heritage.

Nor does he apologize for what some fellow Chinese see as an attack on their culture.

"If you cater to the Chinese culture and let them carry on with it, you're not really doing the Chinese reputation any favours," he counters.

Some civic politicians have questioned their authority to enforce a ban.

Marr is working with others, including NDP MP Fin Donnelly, for a Canada-wide ban, as well as a provincial one.

But he contends shark fins should be illegal to possess already, since Canada is signatory to an international convention banning trade in endangered species and many shark species are endangered.

It's difficult to prove what species of shark a fin came from or whether it was removed from a live or dead shark, he noted.

Some of the local bylaws being imposed simply refuse business licences to businesses that trade or use shark fins, or impose fines for violations.

Marr has been a force in B.C.'s animal rights movement for years.

In the mid-1990s he helped wage a campaign in Vancouver's Chinatown to end imports of endangered species products like tiger balm, rhino horn and bear bile.

And he spearheaded a provincial initiative to block bear hunting, a campaign that failed but led to a short-lived provincial moratorium on grizzly hunting in 2001.





RICHMOND CONSIDERS SHARK FIN BAN

City council is probing a ban on shark fins after an activist Monday challenged Richmond to follow Toronto's lead.

By Matthew Hoekstra - Richmond Review
July 10, 2012 9:00 AM

"I'm hoping to start the ball rolling towards having a complete outright ban of shark fins in Richmond: possession, serving of shark fin soup as well as trading in shark fins," said Anthony Marr.

Many species are endangered due to the killing of tens of millions of sharks each year for their fins. The practice feeds those with an appetite for shark fin soup—a delicacy symbolizing wealth and health, and traditionally served at Chinese banquets.

Richmond's civic politicians agreed to consider a ban, asking staff to research what other cities have done and offer a report by year's end. Mayor Malcolm Brodie said that's when NDP MP Fin Donnelly expects a resolution to his proposed legislation banning importation of shark fins in Canada.

"That will help us to know what we're doing as well," said Brodie.

Donnelly has called the mass killing of sharks for their fins an "international marine conservation crisis" that requires immediate action.

Although council's referral motion was unanimous, only Coun. Harold Steves declared his early support for a ban.

Coun. Chak Au previously told The Review he favoured education, rather than a ban. But Marr, whose activist group is Heal Our Planet Earth, said that approach—used by another advocacy group, Shark Truth—isn't making a sufficient impact.

"They just want to soft-pedal the Chinese community," he said. "The time frame is extremely short. Sharks just don't have the time for the slow, soft approach. We have to take action."

Toronto's ban, on the possession, sale and consumption of shark fin products, goes into effect Sept. 1, imposing fines of $5,000 for a first offence, $25,000 for a second conviction and $100,000 for subsequent ones. Six other Ontario cities have also agreed to bans.

In Metro Vancouver, Coquitlam, Port Moody and the City of North Vancouver have also banned possession and use of shark fins, and Burnaby—after a recent presentation by Marr—is mulling the idea.

Marr, president and founder of the environmental group Heal Our Planet Earth, hopes Richmond, Vancouver and Burnaby will be among the first cities in B.C. to ban shark fins.

"It's cruel. The analogy is if some aliens abducted you, cut off your four limbs and dumped you back onto the road. That's what we do to the sharks, by cutting off their fins and dumping them back into the water," said Marr.

According to ocean conservation group Oceana, 50 of the 307 shark species in the world are vulnerable or endangered, and Marr said it's impossible for shark fin consumers to know what poached products they're buying. He noted Canada has laws forbidding importation and sale of endangered species.

"Richmond right now is in violation of Canadian law," he said.

Meanwhile Shark Truth continues its education work in the hopes of changing attitudes and reducing consumer demand for shark fins.

"In these past three years, we've given opportunities for the community of Chinese descent to take action and to stop shark fin products, and they have," said founder Claudia Li in a statement Monday.

"We've seen fundamental change in our community. People no longer want to serve shark fin because they now know it doesn't match their values. Because of this, businesses serving shark fin are also beginning to take it off the menu and also showing an increased interest in seafood sustainability."


3 COMMENTS:

Anthony Marr · Founder and President at Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE) · 1,333 subscribers
I want to clarify that I have not named any group in my media releases or interviews. What I have criticized is the gradualistic voluntary withdrawal approach, which will take years if not decades to take significant effect. At 73 million sharks killed for their fins last year, the sharks simply cannot wait.
Reply · 9 · Like · Unfollow Post · July 10 at 12:42pm

Laura Brown · Top Commenter
Our precious planet and the life on it does not have time to wait because mankind is indecisive or uninformed.
Reply · 2 · Unlike · July 10 at 12:44pm

Dominique Osh · Lake Tahoe Community College & Sierra College
Great work Anthony Marr, educating and making people understand how important it is to get this horrific, cruel practice of killing these sharks for such shallow and non-existing reasons.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · Wednesday at 12:14pm

Richmond Review - News

RESTAURANTEUR REJECTS SHARK FIN BAN

Shark fin soup is a delicacy symbolizing wealth and health, and traditionally served at Chinese wedding banquets, but the practice of harvesting fins is widely viewed as inhumane. Demand is also putting the animals at risk of extinction.

By Matthew Hoekstra - Richmond Review
July 10, 2012 9:00 AM

A possible shark fin ban in Richmond has the stomachs of some local restaurant owners churning.

David Chung, owner of The Jade Seafood Restaurant on Alexandra Road, vows to put up a fight if city council follows Toronto’s lead of banning the sale and consumption of the Chinese delicacy used in soup.

“Shark fin soup is a tradition that we don’t want to break. It’s something we treasure,” said Chung in an interview with The Richmond Review.

The Jade offers four types of shark fin soup on its dinner menu, ranging from $24 to $63, and it’s a popular choice on banquet menus. But elected officials are now mulling a ban on shark fins, following an activist’s plea at city hall Monday.

The B.C. Asian Restaurant and Cafe Owners Association, which represents nearly 100 restaurants in Richmond, Vancouver and Burnaby, met Wednesday and agreed a ban on shark fins wouldn’t hurt their bottom line, but would infringe on their rights, said Chung, who is the association’s president.

“Nobody likes the idea of banning this eating of shark fin because it’s our right to eat things like this.”

Proponents of a ban say shark finning is inhumane, with poachers catching their prey, cutting off the fins and throwing the sharks overboard. They also say the demand for fins is threatening many shark species with extinction.

But Chung believes only a small portion of harvesters treat the animals as activists claim, adding government shouldn’t focus on such a “little” issue.

“The reason for it is so minor and these activists make such a big deal out of it. It’s just totally unfair,” he said. “If the federal government decided we can import shark fin, we should be able to eat it.”

Chung said shark finning provides jobs for people in developing countries and balances the food system. As a top predator, if sharks are left unchecked, they’ll consume more and more fish, he said.

“If they’re not being hunted or they’re not being killed, a lot of things would change too. The way I see it, the Chinese people have become part of the food chain that keeps things in check.”

Toronto’s ban, on the possession, sale and consumption of shark fin products, goes into effect Sept. 1, imposing fines of $5,000 for a first offence, $25,000 for a second conviction and $100,000 for subsequent ones. Six other Ontario cities have also agreed to bans.

In Metro Vancouver, Coquitlam, Port Moody and the City of North Vancouver have also banned possession and use of shark fins.

Definned Whale Shark - highly endangered

Activist Anthony Marr presented his case for a ban to Richmond council Monday. He hopes to also convince Burnaby and Vancouver to adopt a ban.

“It’s cruel. The analogy is if some aliens abducted you, cut off your four limbs and dumped you back onto the road. That’s what we do to the sharks, by cutting off their fins and dumping them back into the water,” Marr told The Review.

According to ocean conservation group Oceana, 50 of the 307 shark species in the world are vulnerable or endangered, and Marr said it’s impossible for shark fin consumers to know what poached products they’re buying.

Richmond council has asked staff to research the issue and deliver a report by year’s end.

33 COMMENTS

Anthony Marr · Founder and President at Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE) · 1,333 subscribers
It used to be people's "right" to keep and abuse slaves. Mr. Chung represents only those who profit from the cruelty and the destruction. What he says and does are ignorant and arrogant in the extreme, and ruinous to the Chinese reputation. He certainly does not speak for, and in fact speaks against, the majority of the Chinese Canadians living in Richmond who are compassionate, educated and aware. But what he sprouted is nothing new. Back in 1995 when I waged the successful campaign against the tiger, bear and rhino parts trade in Chinatown, the reaction of some profiteers and racketeers was just the same, and I received death threats and endured intimidation. But thanks to enlightened citizens and law-makers, the tiger, bear and rhino medicines have been eradicated, and so will be the shark fins.
Reply · 22 · Like · Unfollow Post · Thursday at 11:34pm

Anthony Marr · Founder and President at Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE) · 1,333 subscribers
Sharks are apex predators. In the restauranteur's simplistic view, it is: "More predators, less prey." What he does not understand is that predators come in several Trophic Levels, i.e. there is more than one level of predators. The sharks, being top predators, prey upon the 2nd and 3rd level predators only, which in turn prey upon the 4th and 5th level predators, which are also prey. So if the sharks are wiped out, the 2nd and 3rd level predators will proliferate and over-prey upon the 4th and 5th level fish, and the entire ecosystem could collapse.
Reply · 4 · Like · Yesterday at 12:47am

Anthony Marr · Founder and President at Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE) · 1,333 subscribers
About shark-finning providing jobs in developing countries, I think he shot himself in both feet.
Reply · 3 · Like · Yesterday at 12:49am

Brenda Davis · University of Guelph
Albert Schweitzer once said, "The thinking man must oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. When we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into the life of another...." WE HAVE A CHOICE. Why would we subject these animals to such torture when it is not only unnecessary, but potentially devastating to the species? To add insult to injury, sharks are large predatory fish that contain high levels of heavy metals and other environmental contaminants, so are best avoided as foods anyway. Nothing will ever justify these kinds of atrocities.
Reply · 14 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 9:34am

Marley Jean · Subscribed · Vancouver, British Columbia
This article blows my mind. Literally everything Mr Chung says is completely out of this world untrue and totally made up to suit his financial desires. I think it is about time that the Richmond review did an article about shark fins and actually quoted some scientists and printed some facts. Mr Chung wants shark fins on the menu for one reason only, MONEY. This article would be laughable if it wasn't so disturbing that there are people on this planet who have such a bizarre and dangerous way of thinking and rationalizing violence and destruction of the natural world.
Reply · 14 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 12:28am

Dale Trigg
Marley Jean , hang my head in shame to be the same specie as mr chung
Reply · 9 · Unlike · Yesterday at 2:10am

Darren Sacher · Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Makes me want to paste posters of shark finning truth covered in his quotes all over the neighborhood surrounding his restaurant
Reply · 8 · Like · Yesterday at 11:16am

Dale Trigg
Then let's do it
Reply · 5 · Like · Yesterday at 11:17am
View 5 more

Felicity Jackson · Works at Shark and marine life saver
“Shark fin soup is a tradition that we don’t want to break. It’s something we treasure,” said Chung. Well, sharks in our ocean are a tradition I don't want to see broken and are creatures that we should all treasure. Shark finning is not only a hugely cruel act upon a living creature, it is causing the decimation of our shark populations. Sharks have a huge part to play in keeping our oceans healthy. For millions of years sharks have helped to keep the delicate balance of the ocean's ecosystem in check. With the huge rise in demand for shark fin soup over recent years, shark populations cannot keep up. If we don't make a stand and eradicate this traditional dish, sadly this traditional dish will very soon eradicate most of our sharks. I do not want to live in a world where we have no sharks and I dread to think what sort of planet we will be leaving to our children if this happens. It is about time humans started using the intelligence we have been given and learn to live in harmony with our natural world instead of blindly destroying it for our own selfish whims.
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 4:02pm

Shannon Veganista · English Language Consultant at 台北市政府
People evolve and so do cultures. Chinese culture, most importantly, is so much more grand than a toxic soup that leads to the collapse of our ocean system, not to mention the demise of a great species that has lived on this planet for 450 million years, responsible to keep our marine systems healthy. Mr. Chung represents only fraction of those who're selfishly holding on to the dollar sign and not giving a hoot of the future of his own offspring. Toronto is a great city and it has the potential to be a vanguard of a great cause. Please do not let these short-sighted people tarnish the future of our oceans and our planet. I'm in so much pain as I write this, pain for the horror that sharks suffer in the finning process, a process that breeds from greed.
Reply · 5 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 9:58am

Lesa Galbraith · Des benevoles sur Terre at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Sharks are being depleted faster than they can reproduce. 90% of the worlds large Shark populations already wiped out. Sharks are an important apex predator. Shark Finning is a brutal slaughter of helpless animals. Their Fins are sliced off while they are still alive and then they are tossed back into the ocean where they die an agonizing death, as they are unable to swim without their Fins.
Shark Finning is a barbaric practice. In this day and age, with what we have learned regarding such cruelty's " It needs to stop NOW ".

Shark Fin soup it is a useless, wasteful and cruel so-called " tradition ".

( ALL ) Shark Fin products need to be banned.

Sharks play a crucial role within the ecosystems. They ensure our oceans health, enabling our existence. Sharks are quickly headed for extinction.
We all must work together to ensure their survival for future generations.

Mr Chung: " What about the right's of the Shark? "

BAN SHARK FIN - BEFORE IT'S TO LATE.
Reply · 4 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:26pm

Lynne Koenigsberg · Top Commenter · Fashion Institute of Technology
"Chung said... as a top predator, if sharks are left unchecked, they’ll consume more and more fish..." Another "human bottom feeder" blaming the demise of the fish population on the sharks, Namibian seals or any other non-human species that depends on the ocean for their next meal... The fact is... the human species is the "top predator" cruelly raping the seas for pure greed, and... it's that simple. Ban shark finning... and any restaurant that serves this item!
Reply · 4 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 8:44am

John Mooter · UC College Conservatory of Music
Many "traditions" need to stop. This is one of them. thanks, Anthony, for your compassion and activism.
Reply · 4 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 4:17am

Lisamarie Dean · Top Commenter · San Jacinto College North
It's people's "right" to impose suffering on another being just so they can eat a part of their body that that don't need to eat? Who ever told this Mr. Chung it was his "right" to claim lives just for the sole purpose of taste buds and greed? We have NO right to take ANY living being's life for our own selfish pleasure. The ban needs to be put into effect EVERYWHERE!
Reply · 3 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 9:12am

Joyce Arthur · Executive Director at Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
Obviously, merchants like Chung just want to protect their bottom line. His assumption is that people have a "right" to despoil the earth and exploit animal life regardless of suffering or cost to the ecosystem. It's thoughtless, arrogant speciesism at its most despicable.
Reply · 3 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 8:02am

Richard Zheng Wang · Wilfrid Laurier University
Mr. Chung talks about "Right" and "Food Chain". Does he know what these words mean? It is our children's right to have sharks in their oceans in a hundred years. How is the Chinese people keeping the food chain in check? We are taking the fins according to demand not according to supply. Any school children can tell you this is not how you "Keep something in check". He says the federal government allows it then it must be right. What about when the Federal Government imposed Chinese Head Tax? Was that a right thing? I wonder if all the mercury in the shark fin soups got to his brain.
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · 18 hours ago

Lawrence Pinsky · Executive Producer/Researcher/Journalist at Intrepid Dog Productions
Time to end this mindless and greedy destruction of a species! It's time to start a new tradition. Stop cutting the fins of millions of sharks every year. Stop cutting the fins off ANY sharks.
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 11:48am

Wendy Kobylarz · Antioch University Los Angeles
It's time already, it's 2012, to put an end to barbaric practices of all stripes that we inflict on all animals. While it may be harder to get people to stop eating steak or chicken, at least in this part of the world, surely anyone with a brain, eyes and a heart can see the devastation caused to individual animals by this kind of torture and killing. Furthermore, it's devastating to oceanic ecosystems, and hence, to our very survival as a planet and a species. If you want to see what the oceans and the animals who live there are going through, I highly recommend the Dutch science-sponsored film, "Sea the Truth." That truth? The oceans will be dead by 2048. Chilling even to me, and I will be 79 years old in that time. Once the oceans are gone, we're all gone. And just for a few tastebuds and political crap, we are going to destroy the planet? And our "right" to treat other creatures this way because we draw some imaginary line of who's deserving of life and who isn't?

This is something I will be watching, too, when planning my next vacation. Nowhere on Earth is totally friendly to non-human animals, but some places are a bit better than others. Germany or Canada? It's kind of looking like Berlin to me at the moment...
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 22 hours ago

Maria Eugenia Gonzalez · Subscribed · Top Commenter · On-Shore Volunteer at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Conservation of Sharks is one of the most important issues in this planet. Our Oceans are dying because of some "Traditions" Shark finning is a terrible crime against the Oceans and against ourselves, people must do the connection before it´s too late. No more Shark fin soup. Nobody needs it.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 22 hours ago

Richard Zheng Wang · Wilfrid Laurier University
Illinois bans shark fin! No more Shark Fin Soup in Chicago's Chinatown. Hurray! http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/sns-ap-il--shark-fin-ban-20120702,0,3688422.story
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 18 hours ago

Laura Halifax McKenzie · Tali, T'Ai-Wan, Taiwan
Just because it is tradition, doesn't mean it needs to stay a tradition forever. Yes, it can be hard to change, as we as a species are stubborn and simple. Emotional attachment to a tradition should not override commonsense and the need to preserve a species and ecosystem. It is very arrogant and ignorant on the side of Mr. Chung and those like him. Why should his tradition destroy an ocean and species that is shared by the planet, not just the Chinese. Moreover, I wonder if Mr. Chung has a wife and daughters? If so, perhaps someone should go over there and try to get him to binned their feet in the name of tradition. Foot binding was a tradition that older then shark fin soup. When it finally was stopped it had lasted for about 900 years. Shark fin soup is a much younger tradition, and that for emperors, not common folk. I am sick and tired of people using traditions and/or faith for upholding behavior that is detrimental to our species, other species and the environment.
Reply · 34 · Unlike · Follow Post · Thursday at 11:09pm

Michael Finch
Good points. Type slower):
Reply · 3 · Unlike · Yesterday at 12:08am

Laura Halifax McKenzie · Tali, T'Ai-Wan, Taiwan
Proofreading would help too.
Reply · 2 · Unlike · Yesterday at 12:34am

Mark Erstling · Works at Sunshine State Angler
well said Laura and right on!
Reply · 1 · Like · Yesterday at 7:02am
View 1 more

Lexie Boezeman Cataldo · Photographer at In Joy Photography
Arranged marriages and bound feet were a tradition in China at one time, also...as we learn more, traditions also change.
Reply · 14 · Unlike · Follow Post · Thursday at 11:09pm

Jen Hendee · Subscribe · Works at Santa Cruz SPCA
And population numbers change -- look how many people there are vs sharks now!!
Reply · 6 · Unlike · Thursday at 11:19pm

Reha Dolphin · Subscribe
Traditions are created by Humans. No specific reasons some traditions created. Some just to boast on their ego of Humans Power. Some Humans wish to rule the World and the Wild Life. Forgetting they don't owned everything on earth. Killing sharks for traditions is such ridiculous idea I must say.This tradition not only killing more sharks but killing more humans as well by eating the shark fin soup and shark meat. If more humans be sensible enough to think about their concern on their health and concern on having sharks in the oceans then the killing of sharks would stop for good.
Reply · 12 · Unlike · Follow Post · Thursday at 11:36pm

Brad Anthony · Founder, CEO at Global Animal Welfare Development Society (GAWDS)
At $62.99 a bowl; it's not rocket science figuring out what traditions these restaurants and owners want to protect. They don't care that their greed is destroying the oceans as long as they make more money. Cannibalism was once a tradition as well; thankfully most people were smart enough to see the benefits of leaving that outdated belief to our dark chapters of history.
Reply · 10 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 12:20am

Sean Smyrichinsky · Subscribe · Union Bay, British Columbia
OK I may be being facetiuos but wouldn't cannibalism help to solve some of the 7billion problems facing sharks?
Reply · 1 · Like · 22 hours ago

Brad Anthony · Founder, CEO at Global Animal Welfare Development Society (GAWDS)
Yes it would. AND, according to Mr. Chung "Chinese people have become part of the food chain..." so we better start eating them first to keep things in check.
Reply · Like · 22 hours ago

M. Renee Fulsom · Dmt at Freelancer
Change is good - man should learn to make a tradition to respect the rest of life that they only SHARE this planet with. Seriously some people need to really get over themselves, the sun doesn't rise and fall for them alone, try looking at the bigger picture.
Reply · 10 · Unlike · Follow Post · Thursday at 11:51pm

Andy Murch · Trip Leader at Big Fish Expeditions
I'm sure that the Chinese community in Canada regards 'family' very highly and that they would like to protect their families' futures. Now that shark stocks have been heavily depleted worldwide, it is critical to protect the remaining stocks in order to maintain a healthy balance in our oceans. Disrupting the food web by removing sharks will eventually affect the health of all fish and invertebrate species. Once the ripple effect disturbs the production of plankton, this may ultimately lead to a breakdown in oxygen production and the ocean's ability to provide us with breathable air.
Tradition is important but there is a much bigger issue here that will impact the health of future generations of Chinese Canadians if the wrong decision is made. The only responsible action at this point is to ban shark fins in order to give shark stocks time to recover. I hope that those members of the Chinese community that are opposed to the ban can see past their resistance to change in order to protect their children's futures.
Reply · 9 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 9:15am

Kourosh Taie
"Chung said shark finning provides jobs for people in developing countries and balances the food system. As a top predator, if sharks are left unchecked, they’ll consume more and more fish, he said. 'If they’re not being hunted or they’re not being killed, a lot of things would change too. The way I see it, the Chinese people have become part of the food chain that keeps things in check.'"

lol
Reply · 2 · Unlike · Yesterday at 10:06am

Gerrit Hopman · Lexington, Kentucky
He also says that he doesn't want to lose the "tradition." I'm sure it has nothing to do with money
Reply · 3 · Like · Yesterday at 11:49am

Cheryl Anderson · Works at Sears Canada
shark finning is a barbaric practice and needs to end. The fins are only used as a starch for the soup no meat from the sharks are used, the sharks are left to die a slow death in the ocean! How can any restraurant owner think that this should be acceptable? Perhaps activists in Richmond need to protest outside that restraurant!
Reply · 8 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 8:50am

Nick Schaeffer · Subscribe
Traditionally Chinese people had no rights in Canada. Is change a bad thing? (Of course not!) Stop justifying this abomination blaming your parents and their cultural values. Grow up a be responsible for our planet , this is our only world. Please don't ruin it by holding onto ignorance and superstition,
Reply · 8 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 2:01am

Cheryl Ross · Subscribe
How sad...please let me know if a petition is out there that I can sign...i am of the firm belief if you are going to kill an animal to eat you eat all of it and not just one thing. As well the whole top of the food chain thing is going out of the water with the pollution and the ships in the water!!!! Uggg...you ever just want to reach out and slap (oops I mean touch) someone ;)
Reply · 6 · Unlike · Yesterday at 2:46am

Hayley Honicke · Victoria Girls High School
While we would all like to adhere to the traditions of ancestorial origin, there comes a time when you have to look at the facts of what certain traditions are now imposing on our creatures, in this instance sharks. It is a know fact the when demand exceeds supply, the supply is steadily diminished, this is fact and not rocket science. An ocean without sharks has far reaching consequences and until you understand the signifcance of their role in the oceans ecoysystem, I find it condescending when you make assumptions and banal statements which can have far reaching consequences.It is a deplorable, cruel act upon this animal and when you say that this act is done to keep them in control, I consider it a disparging comment , to say the least. Think before you make statements, of which you have simplistic, rather than educated veiws, because words have far reaching consequences.
Reply · 7 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 4:32pm

Andrea Haas · University of British Columbia
I don't even know where to start on this guys reasoning....

OK, here we go:

"But Chung believes only a small portion of harvesters treat the animals as activists claim, adding government shouldn’t focus on such a “little” issue."....

What's wrong with this statement? "Chung believes". That's what wrong with it. Regardless of what Chung believes, it is not a small portion, it is rather prevalent. Because the fins hold such high value, and the carcass meat does not, there is direct incentives for fishers to cut off the fins and discard the carcass to avoid overfilling the holds on their boats. Next.

"Chung said shark finning provides jobs for people in developing countries...."

Wrong. It is shown that a lot of shark finning happens when sharks are caught as by-catch (taken accidentally), and so these fishers already ...See More
Reply · 6 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 1:49pm

Sandra Lee Childs · Top Commenter · Cascade High School
Laura Halifax McKenzie said it perfectly! There's simply no excuse for such cruelty and ignorance!
Reply · 6 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 10:05am

Laurie J. Wilson · Subscribe
It is estimated that 73 million sharks are killed annually for shark fin soup. At present, China is responsible for an estimated 95 per cent of that consumption. However, the Chinese Govt recently announced plans to ban shark fin soup from all official banquets: This move is lending momentum to an anti-shark fin soup campaign already underway in China led by former basketball star Yao Ming and others. Sorry, Mr. Chung. You can scream tradition all you want. When high-ranking Chinese officials are prepared to go without this dish suggests the tradition can safely be retired in Chinese communities around the world.
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 10:44am

Gene Dries
thanks for sharing..., this is very hopeful and something we should encourage!
Reply · 2 · Like · Yesterday at 10:59am

Paul Wittal Esq · Vancouver, British Columbia
Richmond shouldn't ban shark fin. The federal or at least provincial government should stand up for Canadian values and ban it everywhere!

Why does British Columbia lag behind? California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii have banned this barbaric practice. It's time this archaic "tradition" joins droit du seigneur as an ugly part of history.
Reply · 4 · Like · Follow Post · 23 hours ago

Ann Gallacher
Not only is shark finning cruel and barbaric, what restaurants serving shark fin soup don't realize is that the meat from sharks contain high amounts of mercury. So it's just a matter of time till human deaths will be linked to shark fin soup. Sharks should be left in the oceans where they belong, not in a bowl of soup.
Reply · 4 · Unlike · Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:31am

Bill Powers · San Diego, California
Hawaii, California, Washington, and Oregon have banned Shark Fin products... not to mention a few nations in the Western Pacific. Evern the Chinese government announced recently it was phasing out shark fin soup at all of it's official functions. All the science points to many (most?) shark species as being decimated due to (mainly) the practice of finning. But obviously Mr. Chung knows something that of they (we) don't. Yeah, right.
Reply · 3 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 11:46am

Avalette-Evelle Vegetalienne · Works at STOP UBC Animal Research
A tradition that will ruin our oceans and delicate ecosystems forever? They will not be able to have this "delicacy" when they make the entire shark population extinct! WE NEED SHARKS in our oceans. The people who serve these shark fins have no respect for the rest of the world, as they are killing all the sharks that we need in our oceans as the apex predator. Without sharks our oceans are doomed! This affects the entire world! Come on Canada, get in gear and ban the sale, possession and trade of shark fins nationally! We can't kill sharks here in Canada because it is endangering our oceans but we can pay someone else to do it? Where is the logic in that? The ONLY option we have that makes sense for the WORLD is to STOP IMPORTING SHARK FINS!
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 1:08pm

Kevan Egan · Stand Grammar School
Shark finning is a barbaric act conducted by barbaric people, how can this be tolerated in a modern world. Can you believe the gaul of a man who finds this act acceptable can describe an attempt to stop it as ''unfair'' :-0?
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 1:18pm

Deja Winters
That was said perfectly Laura!
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 12:40pm

David Sharkman Dawson · Top Commenter
tradition? no comment for such ignorance.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 18 hours ago

Stewart Sy · Subscribe
Here's their FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/jadeseafood they've been deleting all negative comments folks have been posting there though, last night there were lots of folks putting their feelings on thie FB page, but now it's been deleted. Let them know how you feel.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 5 hours ago

Alister Benn · Subscribe · Director at Whytake LLC
I see they have disabled comments by others on their page
Reply · Like · 2 hours ago

Deb Fugitt
Only 61 people like their page. Do you think that making comments there just brings them more publicity?
Reply · Like · about an hour ago

Andrew Larson · University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Such a "little" issue...I hope Mr Chung soon finds his restaurant empty!
For the people in the area-Please do not support this idiot and his buisness!
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 2 hours ago





Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/Anthony.Marr.001
www.facebook.com/Global_Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.youtube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com
www.AnthonyMarr13.wordpress.com

The Light of Destiny

Once, the man prayed: “God, if I am to be given this mission, please extinguish this bedside lamp.”

He waited and waited, but the light stayed on, and his heart sank lower and lower.

Finally, he got tired of waiting, went to the bathroom, brushed his teeth, undressed, and went to bed. When settled, he reached over and turned off the lamp.

And in the dark he heard, “Thus, you have chosen to take on this mission of your own free will. Amen.”

Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/Anthony.Marr.001
www.facebook.com/Global_Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.youtube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com
www.AnthonyMarr13.wordpress.com

To the City Clerks of Vancouver, Richmond and Surrey.

To: The City Clerks of Vancouver, Richmond, New Westminster and Surrey.

Dear Sir/Madam:

My name is Anthony Marr, and I represent the Vancouver Animal Defence League and its delegation in making the following application:

We would like to have the opportunity to give a presentation to the Mayor and City Council, on the subject of banning the possession, consumption and trade of shark fins within your municipality as soon as possible please, thank you.

On June 25, 2012, we made such a presentation to the Mayor and City Council of Burnaby, with excellent results for all concerned. Within one day of our presentation, Burnaby City Hall announced to and via the [24Hrs] newspaper its intent to ban the possession, consumption and trade of shark fins in Burnaby.

Please refer to the following links:

1. The pre-event newspaper article [Activists Call For Shark-Fin Ban] in the [Burnaby NewsLeader] newspaper (June 21, 2012)
http://www.burnabynewsleader.com/news/159890095.html

2. Anthony Marr's picto-video blog of the Burnaby City Hall event (June 25, 2012):
http://homosapienssaveyourearth.blogspot.ca/2012/06/ban-shark-fins-demo-and-presentation.html

3. The post-event newspaper article [Burnaby to Ban Shark Fin Trade] in the [24Hrs] newspaper:
[http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2012/06/26/19923296.html

4. The Post-event newspaper article [Shark Fin Ban Gains Momentum in Metro Cities] - [Burnaby NewsLeader] and [Surrey North Delta Leader] newspapers (June 27, 2012):
http://www.burnabynewsleader.com/news/160769665.html?mobile=true

5. Article [Burnaby to Consider Shark Fin Ban] in the [Burnaby NewsLeader] newspaper (June 29, 2012)
http://www.burnabynewsleader.com/news/160867815.html

Thank you for your attention.

Please contact:

Anthony Marr, Spokesperson
Vancouver Animal Defence League
206-259-9679

COUNTER-STEERING - the all important riding technique

To all motorcycle learners:

What I have to say here can save your life. It saved mine. It is about COUNTER-STEERING - the most important riding technique by far. If you don't know what counter-steering is, what happened in this video could and likely will happen to you.



This rider did two things wrong, which led to his crash. 1. He was trying to use his weight to lean the bike in the curve, and just couldn't lean it enough. And 2. He tried to slow down the bike while on the curve, which caused it to stand up and go straight, i.e. off the curve. So the bike went wide and crashed.

I have address #2 elsewhere. This is about #1.

Anyone who rides a bicycle knows that you have to lean the bike to make a turn. The difference between riding a bicycle and a motorcycle is that the bicycle is so light you can lean it with your weight. Not so a motorcycle. The theory of COUNTER-STEERING is to use steering rather than shifting body weight to lean the bike.

COUNTER-STEERING is somewhat counter-intuitive. If you are riding TRIcycle, when you want to turn left, you turn the front wheel to the left; when you want to turn right, you turn the front wheel to the right. But when you are riding a two-wheeled motorcycle, when you want to turn LEFT you INITIALLY steer to the RIGHT, and vice versa. In doing so, you cause the bottom of the bike to go right, thus causing the top of the bike to fall to the left; thus, the bike leans to the left. Once the lean is achieved, you then steer to the left to make the left turn. Vice versa if you want to turn to the RIGHT - steer INITIALLY to the LEFT to cause the bike to lean to the right.

Another way to put this is that when you want to turn left, you initially push the left handlebar forward; vice versa for when you want to turn right, you initially push the right handlebar forward.

In a high speed curve, you finely adjust the lean of the bike by adjusting your steering. If you are in a left-hand curve and your bike cannot hold the curve and drift towards the outside, push your left handle-bar forward slightly to lean the bike to the left more, then ride through the curve.

So in the video, what the rider should have done was to press the LEFT handlebar FORWARD, which will cause the front wheel to steering MOMENTARILY to the RIGHT, thus leaning the bike lower to the LEFT, while adding power to keep it from falling over. Once the required lean angle is achieved, steer normally, i.e. constantly micro-adjusting the lean angel by means of COUNTER-STEERING. This is especially important in decreasing-radius curves.

COUNTER-STEERING can also save your life by allow you fast evasive action. Suppose you are heading down the highway at night and suddenly you see a deep pot-hole in your path, either you ride straight into it and crash, or use quick counter-steering to skirt it - same technique used in a round-about. Using body weight to lean a heavy motorcycle bike is seldom sufficient or fast enough to meet the challenge.

If you haven't mastered COUNTER-STEERING, don't get out of the parking lot.


Anthony Marr, Founder and President
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
Global Anti-Hunting Coalition (GAHC)
Anthony-Marr@HOPE-CARE.org
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.facebook.com/Anthony.Marr.001
www.facebook.com/Global_Anti-Hunting_Coalition
www.myspace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.youtube.com/AnthonyMarr
www.HomoSapiensSaveYourEarth.blogspot.com
www.DearHomoSapiens.blogspot.com
www.AnthonyMarr13.wordpress.com