When did Air NZ become our moral guardians?

 

via scmp.com

via scmp.com

The South China Morning Post reports

Air New Zealand has followed Cathay Pacific’s example and stopped carrying shark fin after environmental campaigners discovered the airline was flying the cargo to Hong Kong.

The airline – which prides itself on its image as an environmentally conscious carrier – took the step after admitting to bringing at least two cargoes of shark fin sourced from Fiji to Hong Kong in the past eight months.

However, Air New Zealand insisted the shark fin flown to Hong Kong since October was by-product and had not been obtained by the brutal practice of finning, in which fins are sliced off and the sharks left to die.

Pressure group the New Zealand Shark Alliance alerted the South China Morning Post to the fact that the Auckland-based carrier was sending shark fin to Hong Kong.

The group said it wanted the carrier to follow the lead of Cathay Pacific, which last September halted shipments of shark fin following a sustained lobbying campaign by environmentalists.

Approached by the newspaper about the campaign, airline spokesman Andrew Aitken said yesterday: “Air New Zealand has taken the decision to suspend immediately the carriage of shark fins while we undertake a review of the issue.”

When did Air New Zealand become the moral guardians of what and what not to transport?

What next?  They won’t transport prostitutes as passengers?

Or fat people?

Once you start passing moral judgment where does it end?

How about gay married couples?  Are they going to be ok?  All that is needed is for a sustained lobbying campaign from Family First to be applied to Air NZ, and will they then “suspend immediately the carriage of ” gay married people while they “undertake a review of the issue”?

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • James

    And especially if the fins are a by-product. What else do the greenies want people to do with them? Throw it back in the sea?

    • Teletubby

      The fins are not a by product, that is the whole issue. I can’t access You Tube from my current location but I know there is footage there of fisherman cutting of the fins and throwing the sharks back overboard to die what I imagine is a slow horrible death. I’m no greenie and no animal rights protester, I have no problem with hunting for food but I do have an issue with leaving a maimed animal or killing an animal for a trophy or one tiny part of its body.

      • disqus_QH0I5jvhI2

        You cannot legally land shark fins in NZ without having a shark to go with them. All fins exported from NZ are by-products of a total school shark, spiny dog and rig – plus other shark species catch – in excess of 17,500 tonnes greenweight each fishing year. Total Allowable catches are set for all shark species. I agree that finning is done elsewhere in the world but it is not done in NZ waters to supply product to the shark fin market.

        • Bunswalla

          The fins were sourced from Fiji. Not sure if they have the same rules regarding finning but I’d hope and expect they do. Small island nations depend a lot on food form the sea and are unlikely to do anything to disrupt the food chain. However foreign-owned fishing boats don’t always think or behave the same way.

          • So because SOME people do it immorally, Air NZ refuse to transport the morally harvested fins? Do we agree?

          • Bunswalla

            You’ll have to ask Air NZ why they stopped, but I take your point.

            It’s more likely as someone posted below, a business decision rather than a moral stand.

        • Honcho

          Rig is good eating, I would be pissed off if someone was catching them just for the fins.

        • Hazards001

          Exactly

      • disqus_QH0I5jvhI2

        You cannot legally land shark fins in NZ without having a shark to go with them. All fins exported from NZ are by-products of a total school shark, spiny dog and rig – plus other shark species catch – in excess of 17,500 tonnes greenweight each fishing year. Total Allowable catches are set for all shark species. I agree that finning is done elsewhere in the world but it is not done in NZ waters to supply product to the shark fin market.

      • “Air New Zealand insisted the shark fin flown to Hong Kong since October was by-product and had not been obtained by the brutal practice of finning, in which fins are sliced off and the sharks left to die.”

        They are refusing to transport legally obtained fins.

      • Hazards001

        Really..and you saw all that on you tube?

        We (the crew of the boat I was once a commercial fisherman on) made a lot of money on our shark catches here in NZ, the sharks were in fact the only thing we filleted on the boat due to to the ammonia sacs fucking up the fillets.(Not a factory ship, just a commercial boat) The fillets are sold as in the fish shops regularly as lemon fish and are one of my personal favourites.

        We most certainly finned the sharks and sold the fins to an Asian buyer that paid us good money for them.

        The sharks were dead when they were finned on our boat and I’d imagine any other boat for the exact same reasons..not particularly as a kindness but because fucking sharks can take a bloody good chunk out of you if you’re not careful and it’s all about a few bucks in the bank…right?. (The only sharks thrown overboard were the spiny dogs and they aren’t finned as the fins like the rest of the shark is vile and would contaminate the meat)

        Fuck I get tired of sanctimonious cunts that see shit on you Tube and extrapolate it to back here.

      • James

        New Zealand sourced fins are a by-product. You have to land the shark that goes with them. We should be encouraging the consumption of New Zealand sourced shark fin for the very reason that it helps solve the problem of throwing live sharks back in the sea without their fins.

  • Teletubby

    This isn’t about morals, it is about hypocrisy.

    Air NZ ride the clean green image in their marketing so they need to walk the walk. I know their suppliers need to met standards in terms of environmental policy and practice if they want to be a supplier to AIR NZ, therefore AIR NZ need to meet high standards themselves.

    As a big fan and medium sized customer of AIR NZ I am very disappointed they did this and glad they have stopped the practice and come clean on it.

    • You need to take a step back here. You agree because you support the cause. But what if you don’t support the cause and they refuse to transport a certain item, otherwise completely legal?

      It’s the thin end of the wedge.

      If it is legal, and is allowed in a plane cargo hold, then it should get transported. Imagine if every company down the delivery chain makes value judgements about the goods they refuse to carry for their customers?

      • Bunswalla

        But Pete the reality is they can do that, as long as they’re prepared to wear the consequences. There’s nothing to say they have to do or not do anything, as long as their actions are not illegal. Refusing to carry legally-obtained cargo is not against the law, it’s their call and they’ll live or die by their decision.

        Probably this will win them more friends than enemies in New Zealand, but may have a different outcome for their Asian clients.

        BTW, would you be happy about them carrying whale meat to the Tokyo markets that the Japanese whalers insisted were caught for research purposes?

        • I agree they can.

          But when they refuse to carry the life-saving medicine that you need on the grounds it is made by a multi-national that is deemed to be negative in some way, you may have a different opinion of it.

          The point remains: should a transport company get itself involved in making moral judgements about what they do or do not want to transport?

          • a{random{reader

            It’s not a moral decision.

            It’s a business decision – they’ve decided that the potential cost to their brand from adverse publicity is greater than the freight income that they earn from transporting the fins.

          • So they cave to economic blackmail…Greenpeace the terrorists win…

        • Yes, and I’d like to see whale meat for sale here too…there fricken millions of them out there, sure a couple of thousand wouldn’t be too much to harvest.

  • wiltinpenis

    WO, I don’t understand your analogies, regarding the shipment of fins from what is likely to be just another example of the repulsive and species threatening, finning industry.
    Your examples want to be on the plane. No one asked the shark.
    How would you feel if it were Orca fins?

  • wiltinpenis

    WO, I don’t understand your analogies, regarding the shipment of fins from what is likely to be just another example of the repulsive and species threatening, finning industry.
    Your examples want to be on the plane. No one asked the shark.
    How would you feel if it were Orca fins?

    • Not speaking for Whale here, but the fins in question were legally and properly obtained in Fiji. As in, this wasn’t a value judgement made about how these fins were obtained, it is a value judgement about shark fins as a total industry.

      What if we start pushing transport not to carry stuff we don’t like or object to? What if couriers, or NZ Post, or shipping companies yield to lobby groups not to do something as basic as…. transport Barbie Dolls?

      • Dumrse

        Barbie Dolls…… You are as bad as WO.

        • Thank you.

          Some people think Barbie Dolls project an unrealistic body image that are a negative influence on young girls.

          Based on that, I could see a transport company taking a moral position not to transport them.

          • Bunswalla

            And it’s their right to do so.

            It’s interesting that ivory poachers also used to say that all the tusks they had were “by-catch” that they removed from already-dead elephants that had died of old age. The reality was that they had butchered them, hacked out the tusks and left them to die. The only way the ivory trade was stopped was when enough countries said that any elephant tusks would be confiscated and burnt, and whoever had them would be locked up for a very long time. It worked.

          • LabTested

            You nailed it in one

          • Chrish4

            And ironically, now Africa is over run with Elephants and they have to cull the buggers.

          • Muffin

            I’m with you, if the cargo is legal then it can fly, if the majority doesn’t like it get the law changed

      • wiltinpenis

        Barbie dolls might be ‘basic’ in your world. Protection of threatened species is in mine.

        • There are just so many way this conversation can now take a wrong turn, I will gracefully wish you good luck and bow out.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Wait until the Green government forces Air NZ to fly on water….

  • cows4me

    Don’t worry ANZ is not the only corporate who thinks they are our moral guardians, Fonterra is not scared of shoving their morals down their shareholders throats. Clean streams accord, milk for schools and a plethora of bullshit rules and regulations that are simply window dressing for the PC world we now have to live in.

    • Travis Poulson

      With respect, farmers need to be forced to take action in regards to looking after the waterways they’re fucking up. In my time dairy farming it was pretty obvious with the relaxed attitudes to water quality by farmers, but most of them get pissy about it because riparian planting and getting pinged for effluent offences doesn’t directly translate to milksolids in the silo.

      • David Broome

        Travis it is wally’s like you which hack me off. A mass sweeping generalisation that will make your mate Russel Norman smile. Where was your post when 6.8 million litres of Wellington’s human waste flowed into the harbour or that in auckland (partially treated) that goes into a massive pipe out into the harbour. Out of mind out of sight. Check the MfE bathing quality results and check where the worst sites are; some are rural, some are urban but others correspond to camp sites and lakes where hunters blast birds out of the sky. On the riparian plànting yes Taranaki helps out but the lions share falls on farmers who do the physical yakka and pay most of the cost. Alternatively you can have Horizons and the 30 million spent enriching lawyers while Palmy is in breach of its consents. At least farmers are doing something as opposed to the nothing being done to deal with your waste. Direct your ire there.

        • Travis Poulson

          “Taranaki helps out but the lions share falls on farmers who do the physical yakka and pay most of the cost.”

          And so they should, they’re the ones doing the damage to the rivers. Who else would you expect to do it, the taxpayer?

          A mass sweeping generalization my arse, I didn’t say “ALL farmers”. That was a mass sweeping exaggeration on your part.
          I’m not defending the other points you outlined about urban waste, as that is detracting from what this thread is about and I also agree with you, but I felt compelled to respond to cows4me’s comment because he was moaning about morals being shoved down his throat, when in fact it is a matter of responsibilities. (except the milk for schools)

          You make the mistake of thinking that anyone that wants the environment protected is automatically a Russell Norman/Greens supporter, that couldn’t be further from the truth. In saying that, would that mean that anyone that isn’t doesn’t care about the environment?

    • LabTested

      Surely ,Milk for Schools, is great marketing. My kids are addicted to it at home. Costs me a bloody fortune & pisses me off when there is none left for my morning coffee

      • James

        I agree – since the milk for schools campaign started up we are getting through an extra 3l of milk a week at home. And it isn’t like the milk is forced on the kids … the parents are asked if we wanted the school to participate and the kids don’t have to drink it.

  • Patrick

    They should stop carrying all those bums from around the country to Wellington. That would be taking a moral stand – tell Russell Norman & his mates to ride a bike

    • Dumrse

      Way better than Barbie Dolls.

  • wiltinpenis

    As should I, gracefully. I have dinner to create.

  • thehawkreturns

    Second misjudgement of the blogship in a week WO. Better get back onto the streets!
    We rightwingers see two things here – one it is just repugnant to feed the Chinese a bit of fin while killing a huge animal – very wasteful and inefficient, two it is good business sense by Air NZ. They have been found out and reacted quickly.

    • James

      The point is that these are by-product fins – which are VERY different to fins that are cut off with the rest of the fish going to waste. Every time you order a piece of shark at the fish and chip shop that shark needs to have been caught somewhere. And, given that we don’t eat the fins, surely it is better that these are sent to people who do eat them than being thrown away as food waste?

  • Mediaan

    Laying aside the main point, how many moral extras is Air NZ going to enforce, what difference does it make to the shark?

    One way he dies suddenly de-finned in the water. Sad and grim. But it his home environment.
    The other way, he dies, just as fast, de-finned and mutilated in other ways, on land. Sad and grim. Longer process, and an alien environment for him.

    (The second way, furthermore, he maybe dies after having dumb unionists gabbing around him.)

    Thinking as a shark, I’d vote the water option.

  • the silence from the green party is deafening.

  • BR

    “When did Air NZ become our moral guardians?”

    Perhaps it all started the day some politically correct middle management homosexual employee decided that some mincing poofter would do the safety demonstration video, which included Paul Henry being kissed by said ponce. If I were Paul Henry (s)he would be kissing my fist.

    Bill.

  • GregM

    Shark fin soup is delicious. as long as it is the result of by product I have no problem with air NZ carrying it. PC bullshit again.
    And no, it didn’t give me a woody the cat couldn’t scratch, maybe I need to eat more of it.
    Edit. It’s a fishy version of bacon hock and veg soup, if your granny used to make that, you will know what I mean. Fucking primo.

25%