Corpusfishing.com

[The Trash Heap]

http://www.caller.com/news/2013/may/20/ban-shark-finning-stifled-texas-senate/
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[Tyler]

Say what? He's got to have been misquoted. Unfairly targeting s smugglers?
_________________
Like Corpusfishing.com on Facebook!

[fishinglady]

He said: "...bill would unfairly target only smugglers who work within the state." Yep, he doesn't want to pick on Texas smugglers while smugglers in all the other states go free. Gotta protect our Texas smugglers!!!!!

So many of our state politicians have such a way with words.

[flounder daddy]

Hes a political persuasion that shall not be mentioned and his 1st name is Juan. Whatdya expect? Probably got paid off by the cartel.

[The Trash Heap]

[fishinglady]

Actually, the one who make the statement is a Republican.
"Republican Sen. Troy Fraser of Horseshoe Bay said the bill would unfairly target only smugglers who work within the state."

It was the political persuasion that shall not be mentioned named Juan who introduced the bill trying to protect the sharks.

[The Trash Heap]

[flounder daddy]

That's what happens when I read fast.

[ironmanstan]

[ltorna1]

Things like this are embarassing for the country. We talk big-nuts on the international stage about conservation and how other countries and cultures should change their ways, and we can't even pass a domestic bill on shark finning. We are supposed to be international leaders and instead we just look like a bunch of hypocrites that nobody will take seriously.
_________________
...if my boss ever finds this forum I'll be unemployed...

[Oil Field Trash II]

I didn't see any quotation marks around that comment... so the first thing I thought was ... "maybe that's not a quote"

so I did a little research, and it looks like Juan attempted to completley ban the sale of shark fins, and not ban shark finning... what's the difference? the difference appears that on legally caught sharks, the commerical guys can legally sell the fins from those sharks.

the evil republican's comment was actually more to the tune that the bill was not logical, and that fisherman who legally caught sharks should be able to sell all parts of the shark. I looked at 4 or 5 different articles, and each article had a different version of what he said, none of which were direct quotes.

so the bill itself actually had nothing to do with the practice of finning, it was a bill to ban the sale of all shark fins... legal or not. Never mind the fact there are already federal laws that ban shark finning?

so actually... it wasn't a quote, hence, no quotation marks, and the ability to twist someone's words to make them sound really nasty....

[lifeaquatic]

I beleive that seven States have passed laws restricting trade of shark fins. Here is House Bill 852. It proposes the head or tail of a shark could not be removed until the fish reaches it final destination. The rest of the bill concerns restricting the sale or purchase of shark fins. It seems the shark would need to stay whole if it was bought or sold. Unless if I'm missing something, it looks like it would be a step in the right direction.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB00852I.htm

[signal_4]

This looks like the final version of the bill that was killed

By: Lucio III, et al. (Senate Sponsor - Hinojosa) H.B. No. 852
(In the Senate - Received from the House May 6, 2013;
May 7, 2013, read first time and referred to Committee on Natural
Resources; May 17, 2013, reported favorably by the following vote:
Yeas 7, Nays 1; May 17, 2013, sent to printer.)

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to the sale and purchase of shark fins or products derived
from shark fins; creating an offense.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 66.216, Parks and Wildlife Code, is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 66.216. POSSESSION OF HEADED OR TAILED FISH. (a) No
person may possess a finfish of any species taken from coastal
water, except broadbill swordfish, shark, or king mackerel,
that has the head removed unless the fish has been finally
processed and delivered to the final destination or to a certified
wholesale or retail dealer.
(b) No person may possess a finfish of any species taken
from coastal water, except broadbill swordfish or king mackerel,
that has the tail removed unless the fish has been finally processed
and delivered to the final destination or to a certified wholesale
or retail dealer.
SECTION 2. Subchapter C, Chapter 66, Parks and Wildlife
Code, is amended by adding Section 66.2161 to read as follows:
Sec. 66.2161. SALE OR PURCHASE OF SHARK FINS. (a) In this
section:
(1) "Shark" means any species of the subclass
Elasmobranchii.
(2) "Shark fin" means the fresh and uncooked, or
cooked, frozen, dried, or otherwise processed, fin or tail of a
shark.
(b) A person may not buy or offer to buy, sell or offer to
sell, possess for the purpose of sale, transport, or ship for the
purpose of sale, barter, or exchange a shark fin.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), this section
applies to:
(1) the possession or transportation of any shark fin
with the intent to sell the fin regardless of where the shark was
taken or caught; and
(2) the sale or purchase of any shark fin regardless of
where the shark was taken or caught.
(d) This section does not apply to the possession or
transportation in this state of a shark fin taken or caught outside
this state and transported from a point outside this state by common
carrier without being unloaded in this state to a point of delivery
outside this state.
(e) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), the department may
issue a permit for the possession, transport, sale, or purchase of
shark fins for a bona fide scientific research purpose.
(f) When a person is charged with violating this section,
the warden or other peace officer shall seize and hold the shark fin
as evidence. Notwithstanding Section 12.109, on a final court
ruling, the department shall destroy the shark fin.
SECTION 3. Section 66.218, Parks and Wildlife Code, is
amended by adding Subsections (c) and (d) to read as follows:
(c) A person who violates Section 66.2161 or a proclamation
adopted under that section commits an offense that is a Class B
Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.
(d) If it is shown at the trial for a violation of Section
66.2161 or a proclamation adopted under that section that the
defendant has been convicted within five years before the trial
date of a violation of that section, on conviction the defendant
shall be punished for a Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.
SECTION 4. The change in law made by this Act applies only
to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed,
and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For
purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the
effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred
before that date.
SECTION 5. This Act takes effect July 1, 2014.


"so I did a little research, and it looks like Juan attempted to completely ban the sale of shark fins, and not ban shark fining... what's the difference? the difference appears that on legally caught sharks, the commercial guys can legally sell the fins from those sharks."

From the way I read the bill no one would be able to legally sell,transport for sale for off load in the state, barter or trade shark fins...... commercial or private.

The only exception as this bill reads is that a commercial carrier cannot be charged under this law who's starting point of travel was out out of state, and who's final destination point was also out of state, can transport fins across Texas lines without stopping to off load any portion of the fins.

The practice of shark fining is already illegal under federal law, however the profit outweighs the cost of the fines. To stop the practice you need to kill the demand first. That's what this bill was trying to accomplish. By making the sale or purchase of shark fins arrestable, restaurants will no longer be able to sell the soup....Major cities like Houston will no longer be able to import (or maybe export) shark fins for business to sell.

Its well known that sharks and other marine life are being constantly poached of Texas waters by Mexican fisherman....weve seen this as finned sharks have washed up on PINS as well as the long liner floats on both Corpus and PINS beaches.

Imagine that the fins (which were illegally caught in our waters) are being processed in Mexico and then transported through the border check points to major cities in Texas for sale. Making this illegal would give the check point agents the tool to seize and make arrests.

Now my question is why is a senator from Horseshoe Bay which is up around Austin ( No where near the Gulf Coast) have such an opposition to the conservation law ? The only thing I can think of is political or monetary gains. It appears that a group of Charter Boat Captains up around Houston/Galveston got together and threw a big hissy fit and probably this senator seeing a opportunity for these gains vouched for them. The captains stated that this bill would be tragic to their business and their clients. Again the way I read this bill it dose not affect charter boats from legally catching and keeping sharks.... They just have to clean them at the docks when they land....what it does affect is that their clients can no longer take the fins and sell them into the market.

It dosent make any sense as to why someone would be against such a law unless there is profit for them in the practice of selling shark fins.

Yes Texas still has a very healthy shark population, for instance Scalloped Hammerheads are often caught off Bob Hall. But did you know that in 2008 the Scalloped Hammerhead was listed as globally endangered ? But as long as the demand and high profit for shark fins is there, these people will continue to poach our waters and you have senator Troy Fraser of Horseshoe Bay and his buddies to thank for it.

[Oil Field Trash II]

So this guy from horseshoe bay got it shut down with a single comment? ...

from the comments I saw, it looks like his thought about allowing the legal sale of legally caught sharks was the reason he argued. I can't imagine anyone would advocate the practice of shark finning.... maybe he owns a string of exotic asian restaurants? Maybe we should ban Asian fine dining since that's the ultimate user of shark fins. That's where the demand is originating from. OR, we could just ban Asians altogether. I don't know anyone else that eats shark fin soup...

what's your story? were you the one who wrote the article on kens 5 out of austin with the poorly misquoted statement?

[signal_4]

here is some reading for ya

http://www.thedorsalfin.com/shark-ne...hark-fin-bill/

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/...lls-in-senate/

http://www.kens5.com/news/Ban-on-sha...208169621.html