Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu
Floor Speech
Senate Bill 2169, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 2, Conference Draft 1
Relating to Shark Fins
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
58th Day, Final Reading
Ordinary Calendar
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
When the first anti-shark finning bill was passed in Hawaii, ten years ago, it was considered landmark legislation that would lead the country, if not the world, to take the necessary steps towards eradicating the practice of removing the fins of a shark and dumping the body back into the ocean. Hawaii’s law requires the entire shark to be landed. This body’s efforts were successful, with Congress later enacting anti-shark finning laws of its own.
Although conservationists then hailed Hawaii’s shark finning ban as ground-breaking legislation that would save sharks from dying unnecessarily cruel deaths, the intervening ten years have apparently proven that what this body did was not enough to them.
Now, with this bill, conservationists want to go further by banning the possession of shark fins, thus eliminating any consumption of shark fins in the State of Hawaii. I fully support the intent of this bill; however, I believe that this bill is going too far to the extreme. As chair of the Judiciary committee, my duty to this body is to inform it of any bill’s unintended consequences. My second duty is to ensure laws are fairly applied.
When I passed this bill out of the Judiciary Committee, I told everyone that I would not accept any draft that does not address the concerns of all parties including those presented by the fisherman, business community, researchers, aquariums, and Chinese Community.
First, the current law prohibiting shark finning is not only the strongest in the world, but it is working. The fishermen I talked to felt that the current law of landing the entire shark is a good balance because the shark takes up so much space on a boat, thus, very little sharks are harvested. Plus, when a shark is harvested, the entire shark should be used just like the fish they catch. Conservationists argue that Hawaii will impact the entire world in regards to shark finning if we ban the possession of shark fins in Hawaii, but such a ban will have a tiny impact on the practice of shark finning in other parts of the world because our consumer market is a speck in this global economy. Rather, to truly make a global impact on the problem of shark finning in other parts of the world, Hawaii’s ban on shark finning should be replicated in other governments around the world. Our federal government could try to create international law that bans shark finning through international treaties.
Second, this bill does not protect our fisherman from unintended catches. Unlike the ivory poacher who deliberately aims a gun at a rhinoceros or elephant, the recreational or commercial fisherman casts his or her line into the ocean and hopes for the best. Fishing is just that, “fishing.” You don’t know what you are going to catch until you pull those lines or nets in. Sometimes one may pull in a shark that is wounded or has died as it struggled on the line or in the net. Instead of landing the wounded or dead shark and making use of the entire catch, fishermen will throw back an already dying or dead shark back into the ocean. Wounded sharks thrown back into the ocean will have a slow and painful death. In this respect, the breadth of this legislation has caused the attempt to save sharks from cruel and unnecessary deaths to backfire.
Third, according to testimony from the Department of Land and Natural Resources, sharks in Hawaii are currently considered sustainable by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The conservationists emphasize the importance of the ecosystem, which is the community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit in nature. Too little predators in the ocean is bad because it could cause an increase in the population of the large fish that could eat up a lot more of the medium fish. On the contrary, too many predators in the ocean can cause a problem because they will cause a decrease in the population of the large fish, which could result in an increase in the population of the medium fish that would over-consume the small fish. Clearly, our current law is working and maintaining a healthy population of sharks in Hawaii. If sharks in Hawaii were in fact listed as an endangered species, then by all means, there should be a ban of possession of any part of the shark, plus let’s impose all the laws protecting endangered species including our “takings” law that includes mere harassment when an individual gets too close to the shark.
Fourth, repeatedly in our House Judiciary Committee hearing, researchers and aquarium administrators opposed the measure unless there was an exemption for them, however, they emphasized that they did not want a permitting process. This bill does exactly what they opposed, as it requires individuals to apply for a license or permit from the Department of Land and Natural Resources to be exempt of this law for research or educational purposes. Further, commercial aquariums will not meet the criteria to be exempted from the law if they do not conduct research or have any educational purpose.
Fifth, this bill will have a negative economic impact on the fishermen, especially to our business community. In its current form, the bill no longer distinguishes between fins naturally attached to or separated from the body of a shark. Therefore, it is not possible for any person other than a researcher to possess a whole shark or remove it from the ocean. This prohibition will effectively kill any shark-fishing operation that sells whole sharks for steaks or any other kind of consumption within the State.
Sixth, I have encountered so many advocates in my eight years in this institution, and time and time again, a good number of them think that negativity can force lawmakers to agree with them through their use of threats and personal attacks rather than an honest debate on policy. Believe me, I had my share of attacks by people, especially with my tenure as chair of the Judiciary committee, and I consider the conservationists’ attacks as uncalled for except for the Humane Society of the United States, which I enjoy working with.
Seventh, this bill unfairly targets our local Chinese community who has traditions of serving shark fin soup for special occasions such as weddings, important business dinners, New Year’s Day, as well as the medicinal practices. Outsiders and transplants into Hawaii continue to impose their beliefs upon the multicultural community in Hawaii. So what is next? Will they introduce a bill to ban kamaboko in Hawaii if it contains shark meat in it? For Americans of Japanese ancestry and many locals, the importance of eating ozoni soup on New Year’s Day as our first meal for good luck cannot be comprehended by those who do not understand our culture. The same goes for the importance of serving shark fin soup for special occasions and the use of shark fin for medicinal purposes. Many in the Chinese community have brought me in and shared their culture with me because of my openness to learn and practice their culture. In fact, I am wearing feng shui beads made of rubies to help bring balance within me. Likewise, as Judiciary chair, I seek to find balance in the laws.
Ten years ago, we passed a law banning shark finning in Hawaii to prevent cruelty to sharks. Now conservationists want us to stop shark finning around the world by having us go further and ban the possession of shark fins in Hawaii. Rather, the conservationists need to lobby the rest of the world to replicate our law banning shark finning, which they touted ten years ago as the landmark legislation that would lead the world.
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
JON RIKI KARAMATSU 