Shark fin soup is getting more and more attention, and so I thought it was about time I talked about it.

I think the most important thing to point out whenever talking about sharks, is how important and crucial they are for marine ecosystems. Most sharks are top predators, and without them there would sure to be ecosystem collapse. 

Shark fin soup is of Chinese origin. The fin itself has very little flavour, but is added for texture and as it is seen as a delicacy. As in the cases of most (if not all) animal-products trade, this is ridiculous. This is particularly ridiculous, as the fin basically adds nothing to the soup, except the name, but it's the name that causes people to buy it. It's often served at special events, such as weddings, and it's not cheap. It can cost up to $100 for a bowl! It seems to me like a bit of a status symbol, like caviar. So it's not even that tasty, and is used more for showing off wealth than for genuine enjoyment of the dish. 

However, it's still in high demand, and because it can fetch rather high prices, people are killing sharks wherever they can find them. They are trying to ensure a steady supply of fins to the market. This demand is unsustainable for the current shark populations, and their numbers have dramatically reduced in the last 30 to 40 years, correlating with the increased demand for shark fin soup. 14 species of shark which are popular within the shark fin trade, are now at risk of extinction (see here for which 14). In addition, 141 sharks are considered threatened or near threatened, and for some other species there isn't even enough data to decide their conservation status. 

The current rate and level of slaughter of sharks will take the populations a huge amount of time to recover from; time they don't necessarily have. Sharks can take anything from 7 to 20 years to reach maturity (depending on the species) and so less and less will reach maturity, and the numbers will plummet at alarming rates. With less individuals reaching maturity, repopulating will be much harder and slower. This has also caused some shark species to be physically smaller - some up to 50%! 

Sharks are often returned to the ocean once their fins have been removed, to enable boats to increase the number of fins they can carry. When the sharks are retuned to the ocean, they cannot swim properly and so sink and either die of suffocation or being eaten by another predator. However, many parts of the world have banned this practise and require the fins to be moved once the boat has returned to land. 

Regulations and laws regarding shark finning are tricky as international waters are unregulated. In 2013, 27 countries and the EU banned shark finning, and finning is banned in the eastern Pacific. There are also shark sanctuaries, where all shark fishing and finning is prohibited, areas where fin-to-body mass ratio based regulations are in place, and areas where shark product trade is regulated. However in most of the Pacific and Indian oceans, shark fishing and finning continues. 

Please don't eat shark fin soup. Awareness in some countries, including Thailand and Singapore, has led to a decrease in consumption by 25%! Therefore showing that the more people who are aware of the risks by killing sharks on such a large scale, the less sharks will be killed. This is a simple case of supply and demand; no demand, no need to supply. 

Marine conservation is something I haven't had much hands-on experience with, but definitely something I want to pursue in the future. I love diving, and I love the ocean, and some of my favourite animals live there. 

Lions are never thought of as endangered. In fact few people realise they could be facing extinction in the wild. Their official conservation status is 'Vulnerable', and so they come under the umbrella term of being threatened. I would guess that if you asked 100 people if lions were endangered, the majority would say no. However there are a number of challenges facing lions that threaten the species. There are only about 20k wild lions across the continent of Africa. 

I've recently discovered Kevin Richardson's YouTube channel and the work he's doing. If you haven't heard of "The Lion Whisperer", as he is also known I recommend checking out his YouTube and website. He is working extremely hard to spread the message about the plight of lions, and all the problems they face, while looking after a great number of lions and other beautiful Africa animals. Since finding his channel, I have become a big fan and love watching his videos so have a look! The reason I mention him is because he is very vocal about the threats to lions, both in captivity and in the wild and I have learnt of  what I want to talk about from him through his youtube/website/twitter/instagram. I also spent a month this summer volunteering at a wonderful sanctuary with big cats in South Africa and so I learnt a lot there too. 

Conflicts between humans and lions over livestock has caused many problems for lions, and is arguably the strongest threat to lions. Lions that attack both people and livestock nearly always end up being killed. Both pre-emptive killings and retaliatory killings of lions by rural people are colossal threats to lions. 

Another example of human-lion conflict is lions getting caught in snares used for bush meat hunting. Snares are set up for the hope of warthog, antelope or other forms of bush meat. This is illegal and often other animals get caught in them, including lions. It is known as the "Silent Killer".

Another big and important threat to lions in Africa is habitat loss. Habitat loss leads to isolation which in turn leads to genetic isolation and inbreeding between wild lions. Inbreeding between lions is dangerous, and that's why breeding within captivity often results in difficulties genetically for the lions. Lions are being pushed out of their habitats into less and less land. Conflicts between people and lions often lead to increased habitat loss also. 

I can't write a lion post and not talk about Canned Hunting. I've written a whole post about this which you can read so I'm going to try not to repeat myself, or go into too much detail about what Canned Hunting is (if you want to know more, click here). Canned Hunting or captive-bred hunting are obviously threats to captive lions as they are drugged and killed when in their prime. They often don't get to live any semblance of a normal life for a lion, as the cubs are often snatched away from their parents at a young age, and there aren't prides of families of lions in sanctuaries practising Canned Hunting. The cubs are often hand-reared, when they didn't need to be. 

Canned Hunting also threatens wild lions. It is often argued that captive-bred hunting helps reduce the hunting of wild lions. This is not the case. Lions are often taken from the wild to prevent inbreeding of captive lions, and many people would much rather hunt a wild lion because its a fair chase. Therefore, the industry for captive bred hunting was created unnecessarily. Trophy hunters, or people who hunt lions in the wild, are obviously a threat too. Social media is often outraged by this, especially after Cecil was shot in 2015. 

Trade in lion bones threatens the lion population, used in traditional medicine in the far east as lion bone wine, which is also used as a substitute for tiger bone wine. It is legal to sell the bones from a lion, and the thinking is that if the demand can be supplied from captive lions, often the victim of canned hunts, then the wild lions should be left alone. However it is impossible to know whether the bones being sold came from a captive or wild lion. Another major issue with this, is that there is evidence to suggest lions are being smuggled from the wild to captivity which is illegal. This also severely threatens the status of lions in the wild. Unsurprisingly, money is the main driver of this. Bringing in wild lions prevents inbreeding and so fuels the Canned Hunting industry, but a lion skeleton can be sold on top of the price of shooting the lion. A lion skeleton could fetch up to $1,560 without a skull and $2,100 with a skull. This lucrative market means more captive owners are likely to join, and lion poaching also becomes a major threat. 

There are also large discrepancies between the number of wild lions hunted, and the number of lions being exported. Between 2004 and 2010, 1138 more lions were exported from South Africa than were hunted. Lions were also being exported to Laos in 2009, without any record of anyone from Laos hunting lions. This suggests a certain level of corruption happening when it comes to lion breeding, and that people are in it for the money. 

All in all, there are a great number of threats to lions, and to say they are not endangered is wrong. A big issue I have noticed amongst these threats, is that they are extremely interlinked. Therefore, to help protect lions, these threats all need to be addressed, especially creating a world where lions and people can co-exist without conflict. 

"If you are against a legal trade, you are for illegal trade." This is something I see written or heard said all the time and of course, it is not as black and white as that. However there is a lot to be said for this argument. If you are against a legal trade in rhino horn, you are probably not pro-poaching (unless you are a poacher/involved in poaching activity of course), but by preventing a legal trade, we are giving the monopoly on trade in rhino horn to criminals. 

As a general rule, people want to help people. I've been speaking to a lot of people since the debate who are pro-trade and I've learnt even more about the work being done in South Africa to help move the discussions along. What I want to talk about in this post is who benefits from illegal trade and who would benefit from a legal trade in rhino horn. This post is about people. 

In a nutshell, the only people who benefit from illegal trade are people who benefit from the plight of rhinos. This is anyone who makes money from rhinos being endangered. The obvious ones are the poachers and criminal syndicates; the people in Africa who poach the rhinos and sell the horn overseas for lots of money. But it's not just them who benefit. Without being too cynical, some charities and NGOs could be benefitting from the endangered status of rhinos. If rhinos weren't endangered, their existence would be unnecessary. Now I'm not saying that some organisations don't want to help rhinos, because I believe they all do. I'm also not saying that anyone who doesn't support legal trade doesn't want to help rhinos, because again, I'm sure they do. But wanting to help rhinos, and helping rhinos, are two different things. The rhino situation is complex, and too many people are looking for a quick fix, or one sole solution. There isn't one. As I said in my previous post, if the ban on trade in rhino horn is lifted, this is not the end. This is really just the beginning of a long journey to increase rhino numbers. That's just the reality of it; you cannot save an entire species over night. Another thing people seem to do is compare other animals in similar situations, and try and find one solution that can cater to all. This is also not feasible. Every animal and every situation is different and should be treated as such. With rhinos, a legal trade has the potential to allow rhinos to save themselves. That's why, to me, not supporting legal trade is controversial. 

The only other group that benefit from illegal trade, are the people in China and Vietnam who are selling rhino horn products. They are able to sell them at extortionately high prices for the sole reason that they contain rhino horn. Therefore, they are making more money than they would, by exploiting people's beliefs. They even put rhino horn in everyday medicines, such as paracetamol, and up the price, charging people extremely high prices for something no better than your standard pain relief. The governments in these countries, and countries in Africa, are doing little to nothing to improve this situation. Either they don't care about losing rhinos or scamming people, or they have something to gain (probably money) from this too. 

Therefore, my rather short list of those who benefit from illegal trade in rhino horn includes criminals, corrupt governments and salesmen, and perhaps some corrupt charities and NGOs.

On a lighter note, I want to talk about who would benefit from a legal trade. As I said at the beginning, people want to help people. I think by knowing more about what a legal trade in rhino horn can do for people, more people will support it. 

John Hume's model for legal trade encourages rural communities to get involved in the breeding and care of rhinos. By giving rural communities rhinos to look after, they can make money from selling the horns. It also gives them work, and is self-sufficient.  There are organisations in place, ready to do this, but they need a legal trade for it to work. For animals in Africa to survive, the local people need to be involved. There are areas identified for rhino breeding projects to begin, and donors ready to supply the rhinos. A legal trade can instantly begin make a difference, and will help rural communities in Africa. 
Legal trade will also massively help the current rhino owners. Rhinos have the means to protect themselves, but under the current laws they are unable to do this. With a legal trade, rhino owners will be able to sell off the stockpiles they have of horn, and use the money to continue to protect their rhino. The money they make from selling the horn can help fund APUs (anti-poaching units), fund further de-horning, which needs to be done every couple of years (rhino horn grows back!!!) and everything else they are currently struggling to pay for to keep their rhinos healthy, safe and alive.
The last group of people I'm going to talk about, even though there are many more (all good things come in 3s), are the people in Asia who are buying rhino horn products. I'm not talking about the rich, who buy rhino horn as elaborate gifts and a sign of wealth and power (although a legal trade would benefit them too). I'm talking about the poor, who spend ridiculous amounts of money on medicine that doesn't work, because they've been told it'll cure their loved ones. In my previous post I talked about how some people say it's unethical to legally sell this. If it's unethical to legally sell it, it's certainly unethical to continue allowing it to be illegally sold. No one is denying this trade exists. Even the people who don't support legal trade are fully aware that illegal trade exists and on a large scale. If the selling of rhino horn medicines was legal, there would be regulations on it. Again, in my previous post I posed the idea of warnings on the packet, as we have with cigarettes in the UK, to tell people there is no evidence that rhino horn possesses medicinal value. With a legal and regulated trade, we can help to educate people that this medicine is not going to do what they believe it will do; it cannot cure cancer and it's not an aphrodisiac. Education is so important, but with an illegal trade, we cannot control what people are promised and ideas they are sold. With a legal trade, we can try. A legal trade can also regulate the price. By providing competition with the black market, the price will drop and the black markets will crumble. Even if poaching doesn't stop completely, as it probably won't, it will dramatically decrease. Why risk your life to poach a rhino for less money? Why buy a black market product when you can buy the same thing legally? 

A legal trade makes sense. What doesn't make sense, is acknowledging that there is a trade in rhino horn, and allowing the criminals to be the only people to profit from it. 
A lot of people who are against legal trade believe that educating the people in China, Vietnam and elsewhere, that they shouldn't buy rhino horn is a far better solution. If we went down this route and convinced people not to buy it, by the time we got anywhere we would all be dead and rhinos would be extinct in the wild. It's not sustainable or realistic. I'm a strong believer in the power of education and awareness, and believe we should never stop promoting the truth, but this will be so much easier and more successful when partnered with a legal trade. 
Save the rhino, not its horn. 

A couple of days ago my friend and I went to the debate at the Royal Institution of Great Britain on whether the trade of rhino horn should be legalised internationally. It was between John Hume, the largest private rhino breeder in South Africa, and Will Travers, the CEO and President of the Born Free Foundation, and moderated by Craig Packer, a professor of ecology. 

We voted for or against at the beginning and the end. The initial vote showed that 62% were against, 30% were for and 8% were undecided. After the debate, 60% were against and 39% were for, with only 1% undecided. Therefore, more people were against legal trade, but more people changed their mind to support John Hume. I'm sure you all can guess that I voted for both times. I was disappointed that not more people did. 

I don't know much about Will Travers and I do not want to overly criticise him, however I was surprised he won. The audience was very passionate and so the debate was actually an hour longer than expected, because people felt so strongly on both sides. 

To me, Will Travers seemed like a preservationist/protectionist. He talked about how we shouldn't interfere with nature and the wild should be left wild. He talked a lot about the risks associated with a legal trade. I wanted to ask him, although I didn't get the chance, at what point would he risk extinction? He never really acknowledged that rhinos are heading for extinction. We don't live in the ideal world he seemed to want where humans don't interfere with wildlife. Whether you think it's right or wrong, there reaches a point where it is necessary for the sake of the wildlife; conservation vs preservation. It's idealistic and I think it helped win people over. 

John Hume spoke a lot about his rhinos. He spoke with emotion and passion, and used his own life to demonstrate the rhino crisis. Although some people felt he was making too much of a point of his own rhinos, and Will Travers was talking more globally, I disagreed. I think it is so important to listen to the people who are actually looking after the rhinos. No one knows better than them exactly what problems they are facing. I think it is easy for people from London to go and listen to the debate, and hear some facts, figures and stories and then make a decision without fully understanding the issue. John Hume understands it better than anyone. Now I'm not saying to understand rhino poaching you have to go to Africa and live on a rhino reserve, but I think we should take into account what the people who are doing that think. It's their whole lives. When we don't listen to the people who fight this war every single day, then what's the point?

It also worries me because people like John Hume need our support. The results of this debate worried me because it showed that people will listen to a man in a nice suit over a rhino breeder. They are both experts in their field, and I do not doubt Will Travers' research and experience, but John Hume has given his money and life to this cause. He risks everything to help save these animals, and people didn't listen to him. 

What annoyed me about the debate was that Will Travers referred to other solutions that would be less risky and more helpful. As far as I can tell, he didn't name them. The only other solution I heard was to stamp out the demand. Members of the audience were vocal about this as they know that when the buying stops there will be no need for any trade in rhino horn, legal or otherwise. I do not dispute this. Of course I want to continue increasing awareness globally, and particularly in countries such as China and Vietnam that rhino horn has no medicinal purpose whatsoever, for their own sakes just as much as for the rhino's. However, I do not think we have enough time to do this before rhinos reach extinction in the wild. Time is not on our side and the market is too big. I think people who believe killing the market is the only solution, are naive. Will Travers tried to point out the negatives of a legal trade without presenting a realistic solution to replace this. 

Another argument Will Travers made was that it is arguably unethical to sell a product we know does not do what people who buy it think it does. I agree, but how many products do people buy on a daily basis that don't do what they think they're going to? Now this doesn't make it right, but its not as if it's unheard of. Secondly, as I said previously, education should work along side a legal trade. We should continue to tell people that rhino horn does not have medicinal value, even while selling the products legally. An analogy I sometimes use is smoking. When you buy cigarettes in the UK (and possibly elsewhere, I'm not sure) it says in big letters on the packet "Smoking Kills" or something similar, such as a nasty side effect, and a picture of often someone's lungs or arteries that have been effected by smoking. This is a legal requirement to make people aware of the health risks. 

People still smoke!

The moral of the story being, people are going to do what they want. If they like something or believe in it; they're going to buy it. I also think this analogy highlights a good way to package rhino horn products. In the ingredients section on the label I think it should read "keratin" and not rhino horn to remind people it's just hair, and it should even have written that there is no scientific proof that it has medicinal value. Then people know what they're buying, and it's their choice if they still buy it. This doesn't happen with illegal trade because there are no regulations. Legal trade has regulations that can be put in place and controlled. 

Will Travers made a point about a legal trade not necessarily meaning the end of poaching. He pointed out that if the price to buy rhino horn legally is say $30,000; then the poaching syndicates can sell rhino horn at $20,000. Obviously this makes sense at face value, but a legal trade will severely harm the black market. Rhino poaching is a very dangerous job. When you enter a reserve to poach a rhino, you are risking your life. It's appeal is the huge sums of money made (although of course those actually doing the poaching do not receive the bulk of this money, but it's still a lot more than they could make elsewhere). If this prize money gets lower and lower, it becomes less appealing. 

John Hume acknowledged that legal trade will probably not mark an end on all poaching, but it will dramatically decrease it. What John Hume did so well was focus on the fact we are talking about keeping a species alive. There's no easy option; no quick fix; no one solution. We have to do what we can, and fast, to prevent losing this iconic species. 

No one is arguing that a legal trade is perfect. No one is suggesting that we legalise the trade, sit back, relax and let things happen. It does not mark the end of saving rhinos. 

What I believe it can do, is bring the species back from the point of extinction. 

This blog post is my opinion. Obviously, based on the debate results and the opinions flying around the room, it is not the only opinion to have on the topic. I know not everyone will always share my view, but I urge people to consider what could happen to the species if a legal trade is not introduced.