The BBC News: Science and Environment covered an article about the recent regulation in trade of shark and manta ray meat and fins. The article mostly maintains a seemingly neutral position on the issue of over-harvesting shark and manta-ray populations for their fins and meat; however, analysis of why this article was written and the word choice shows that the author is probably anti-shark and manta ray harvesting.

To begin,  the title of this article “First Ban on Shark and Manta Ray Trade Comes into Force” just about sums up the article’s position: neutral with slight inclinations towards banning such trade. I say this because if the author Matt McGrath was not even slightly interested in preserving the shark and manta ray species, he would not have covered this story, nor would he be the Environment Correspondent for BBC News. He would also not be using terms like “trade,” which for some, can elicit images of the brutal hunting of animals for bushmeat and prized resources like ivory and furs.

Going into the article, I assumed the author would don the position that shark fins in particular should not be harvested. You may already know that the method by which hunters harvest shark fins is by pulling a live shark up to a fishing boat and using a machete of sorts to slice off all fins from the shark. Since sharks need to stay motile to breathe, the moment they stop swimming, water and oxygen stop passing over their gills and they suffocate to death. I believe that personal bias may have influenced me to think the author would side with the sharks on this one. McGrath discusses some statistics that show how the shark population is at risk due to over hunting, so there is still a chance he is for the protection of sharks.

BBC is a pretty well-known broadcasting organization, but the fact that there are no citations for “scientific estimates” and certain other statistics makes me skeptical of how accurate this article really is. The title is also improperly capitalized, and one would think that in a large company like BBC, there would be some level of proof-reading. At the same time, the author posts his face, name and professional twitter, making him responsible for the content he has posted in this article and, reasonably, less likely to post false information.

The article mentions that the trade flourishes most in Hong Kong and China and this leads to a point for counter-argument. One could say that since shark fin is considered a delicacy in these two areas, it would be sort of culturally insensitive to put a ban on this trade. However, I believe that this is a weak argument, because there are foods other than just shark-fin and many Hong Kongers also agree that harvesting this way is inhumane and not worth causing suffering to all those sharks. In the end, the ban is not about cultural suppression; it is aimed towards preserving what species of sharks and manta-rays are still in existence so that they may support the food web of today and tomorrow.

It can also be argued that placing this ban will hurt those who depend on it do earn a living; but i believe that this, too is a poor argument. People can still trade sharks if they have a permit that certifies they are harvested “legally and sustainably.” It is not that the trade is being banned, it is that the over harvesting is being controlled.

In New York, there has already been a ban on trading shark-fin and I am glad that the rest of the world is staring to change, too. It is important to see that there is a larger picture that includes all species of organisms and that losing one does not only disrupt that local environment. It disrupts the whole network of nested relationships.

Overall, the argument was fairly weak. I felt like there was an attempt to provide sources for the claims made, but not enough evidence-based support was available. It made me cynical about an issue on which I already have an established opinion. Of course, I am always open to change if I am given new evidence, but this article does not say anything new, either. No real alternative conclusions are proposed and the consequences are not elaborated in any real detail. I am afraid I must say that this is not science.

Link to the article: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29175592