Slashdot Mirror


As Fish Stocks Collapse, Overpopulated Lobsters Resort to Cannibalism

The Maine lobster population is booming, but it turns out that's bad news if you're a little lobster: "'We've got the lobsters feeding back on themselves just because they're so abundant,' said Richard Wahle, a marine sciences professor at the University of Maine, who is supervising the research. 'It's never been observed just out in the open like this,' he said." Abundance caused by populations of their predators collapsing.

231 comments

  1. Soylent Red by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soylent Red is lobsters!!!!

    1. Re:Soylent Red by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought it was crab people.

    2. Re:Soylent Red by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're laughing, but I'm sure that crabs have their own opinion of us. I can vividly imagine the dialogue...

      - Why are you scratching your cloaca?

      - I think I got humans.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Soylent Red by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I never laugh.

    4. Re:Soylent Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look like people, taste like crab.

    5. Re:Soylent Red by gagol · · Score: 1

      Humans are animals, humans are overpopulated... logically we should start to eat soylet green soon!

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    6. Re:Soylent Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a clown?

    7. Re:Soylent Red by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Ha!

  2. I guess the food supply by shentino · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is getting pinched.

    1. Re:I guess the food supply by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no no. Here's the proper way to do it:

      I guess the food supply...

      *put on sunglasses* ... is getting pinched.

      YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAHHH!!!

    2. Re:I guess the food supply by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hint:: There's a reason for it...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    3. Re:I guess the food supply by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      No no no. Here's the proper way to do it:

      I guess the food supply...

      *put on sunglasses* ... is getting pinched.

      http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=csi

      is even better.

      So i guess RedLobster is going to have a massive sale now??

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    4. Re:I guess the food supply by organgtool · · Score: 4, Funny

      Error: "There's" is not in scope "Hint".

  3. Of course, by mbstone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want to order lobster in a restaurant they will still charge "Market Price."

    1. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lobster Fed Lobster requires a premium price.

      I'm super rich, so I only eat Lobster Lobster and Kobe Kobe (kobe beef fed with kobe beef). I look forward to the availability of kobe lobster lobster (lobsters only fed lobsters fed with kobe beef).

    2. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing out on chestnut fed pork.

    3. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a good, free market, reason for this. If you live outside Maine, the cost of shipping live lobsters is mostly keeping them alive (water is heavy, temperatures need to be maintained, etc.). If you live in Maine, then the restaurants aren't limited by the price of their food, but by their seating/serving capacity. They can charge their normal price, and still fill all their seats, so why lower the price?

    4. Re:Of course, by mr1911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to order lobster in a restaurant they will still charge "Market Price."

      Yes. Market price is what you, or the diner seated at the next table, are willing to pay. This price has nothing to do with their cost of procurement.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    5. Re:Of course, by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can have your Lobster Lobster, but you can't have Kobe Kobe. Kobe beef refers to more than just a specific breed of cattle. It refers to how they're fed, too.

    6. Re:Of course, by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

      There actually is pretty cheap lobster in Maine in the right season. Absurdly cheap, really.

    7. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I mean it takes a lot of facelifts to get the nuts up to chest level to begin with, and harvesting them can be a painful process.

      They make for excellent pork however.

    8. Re:Of course, by Desler · · Score: 1

      Captain Obvious is obvious?

    9. Re:Of course, by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      True in practice, though it's a bit misleading as a practice. The terminology dates to fish taverns that had fixed prices for items with relatively stable prices, but varying "market price" for items where the wholesale cost to them varied significantly, resulting in them updating their retail price on a daily basis accordingly. Of course, that's not how big fish restaurants actually set prices, but they like to maintain the fiction.

    10. Re:Of course, by mbstone · · Score: 1

      I live in Las Vegas and they have seemingly limitless supplies of Alaska king crab at the buffet for a reasonable price. How come, given this alleged overabundance of Maine lobster, it's not the same for lobster?? I want my $15 all-you-can-eat lobster buffet!!

    11. Re:Of course, by rgbscan · · Score: 1

      and here I though it meant Kobe Bryant. The jokes not as fun now :-(

    12. Re:Of course, by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

      You're not implying that the term "market price" is historically related to fish taverns...are you? Or are you saying that the modern restaurants continuing to use terminology that implies special bargaining has been done is deceptive?

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    13. Re:Of course, by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why not cook and freeze them at the port?
      The same way they do with shrimp.

    14. Re:Of course, by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Those attached to hotels I'm sure are subsidized by casino revenue, same as the cheap (compared to elsewhere) hotels themselves.

    15. Re:Of course, by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Hmm...well, if you have too many lobsters...ship'em down here, and we'll come up with a good Lobster Gumbo...or Etoufee, or Courtboullion, or Lobster Remoulade over Fried Green tomatoes...or Lobster and Corn Bisque...or.....

      Man...its tough to lose weight living in LA.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:Of course, by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      The latter: it's intended (imo) to evoke a perception that the price depends on what deals the chef got at the fish market this morning, which is typically not the case.

    17. Re:Of course, by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Don't you tell me what I can't have! Do you know who I am? I'll have you fired you insolent little puke! Now get your ass in the kitchen, and get me some fucking Kobe Kobe!

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    18. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Beyond the buffet just being a marketing ploy for the profit center (the casino), that crab is all cooked in Alaska and shipped down frozen. Very cheap to ship, which is why I can buy king leg clusters at the supermarket for $8 a pound right now in Idaho, well inland.

    19. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crab is usually frozen before shipping, so it lasts longer.

    20. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This calls for legislative action!

    21. Re:Of course, by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Frozen lobster sucks. Period. Good only for stew and, well,, stew.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    22. Re:Of course, by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, most lobster is shipped packed with dry ice, watere is not necessary, and weight is not the issue. It;s nearly impossible to keep lobsters alive in shipping for more than 24 hours (read that as, 25+ hours), so they go by air if the truck can;t get there in time. And nothing quite matches the odor of dead lobster, even packed. Most airlines I know that take them do so with the caveat that if they are not picked up nearly immediately, they go in the trash.

      Nothing flies cheap any more.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    23. Re:Of course, by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, it is. my mom, when were were young, and on food stamps, used to buy lobster on sale - and people would stare. But a 1 1/4 lb lobster actually goes a long way, better than steak. You get enough to keep 2 pre-teen kids happy, pick the carcass for all the leftover meat and get a nice stew for another meal minimum. We were 5 kids, so 4 lobsters would feed us for 3 dinners, about $12-15 on sale. Not that we complained much...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    24. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      buying lobster is like buying kalvin klein. lobster was once consitered a bad, food and fed to slaves and therefore cheap. today its trendy and expensive.

      lookup prices of yoghurt and greek yoghurt. kmart jeans and kalvin klein.

      nothing new.

    25. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lobster Fed Lobster requires a premium price.

      I'm super rich, so I only eat Lobster Lobster and Kobe Kobe (kobe beef fed with kobe beef). I look forward to the availability of kobe lobster lobster (lobsters only fed lobsters fed with kobe beef).

      Turducken: You're doin' it wrong.

    26. Re:Of course, by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      hello from Hattiesburg, MS.. since im down in your part of the country - be sure to invite me to your gumbo party.

    27. Re:Of course, by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Crab is caught, frozen, and processed all in Alaska (often all on boats!), so shipping it isn't a problem. Come one, don't you watch Deadliest Catch?

      Also, if you have ever eaten way more lobster than you really should have, you will quickly realize all-you-can-eat lobster is a one-time-thing ;)

    28. Re:Of course, by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      newsflash: product is cheaper where it is locally available

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    29. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I mean it takes a lot of facelifts to get the nuts up to chest level to begin with, and harvesting them can be a painful process.

      They make for excellent pork however.

      holy fucking lol

    30. Re:Of course, by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Lobster is bad enough, but frozen lobster? That sounds... like it brings disgusting to a whole new level.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    31. Re:Of course, by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      He's stating the first part, and implying the second.

      How did you not understand that?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    32. Re:Of course, by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      You can have your Lobster Lobster, but you can't have Kobe Kobe. Kobe beef refers to more than just a specific breed of cattle. It refers to how they're fed, too.

      You overlooked the option of cultivating grain and grass with kobe grade beef as fertilizer...

    33. Re:Of course, by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Relevant:
      F: "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"
      L: "I hardly think they'd use broken eggs in executive room service, Gordon."

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKcNB3hKG7Y

    34. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were 5 kids, so 4 lobsters would feed us for 3 dinners

      That's known as the 5-4-3 rule.

    35. Re:Of course, by Bigby · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make sense as to why it is always "Market Price". I completely understand it being absurdly more expensive, but at least put a price down. The shipping prices of those lobsters don't change that much. All their food is shipped and would be subject to the same changes.

    36. Re:Of course, by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      When I was growing up, you could get lobster from the back of a truck for about $4 per pound.

    37. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They can, but Maine doesn't have the capacity. Canada has processing plants for this, but they closed them off to non-Canadian fishermen this year. There are so many lobsters coming in from Canadian fishermen that they don't have capacity to process those from US fishermen. This, however, is not the lobster that is sold at restaurants for "market price."

    38. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's for proles, I only eat pork fed with bacon.

    39. Re:Of course, by istartedi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sarcasm and inference are both broken on the Internet. Please fix that.

      BTW, I know it can't be fixed and has nothing to do with the Internet. BTW stands for "By the way". Yes, I know that re-stating a common abbreviation is irritating. My sig is a joke. Yes I know the joke isn't funny if I say it's a joke. Yes I know this disclaimer is too long to read. This disclaimer is an object lesson in what I think ought to be one of "the laws" for the Internet, right up there with Godwin. It goes something like this: "if there's something ridiculous to be inferred from what you've typed in a forum, it will be inferred" with a corrolary, "no amount of explanation can prevent such inferences". Furthermore, I did not copy this from Chuck Lorre. Yes I know I'm not as good as Chuck Lorre. Neither are you. Yes I know that you can't Godwin something explicitly, and so on and so forth, ad nauseum until we all explode. No I don't have schizophrenia or live in my parent's basement. You do. Yes I know that's childish. Yes, any attempt to disclaim only leads to more misunderstandings. Thus, one can only conclude that this is a strange game in which the only winning move is not to play. That's a War Games reference. Yes I know you knew that. Yes I know you didn't know that. Yes I'll Google War Games for you. No I won't...

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    40. Re:Of course, by jjsimp · · Score: 1

      Forrest Gump and Bubba would not approve.

    41. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cows fed with Kobe Bryant. I wonder what there free throw percentage is.

    42. Re:Of course, by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      True in practice, though it's a bit misleading as a practice. The terminology dates to fish taverns that had fixed prices for items with relatively stable prices, but varying "market price" for items where the wholesale cost to them varied significantly, resulting in them updating their retail price on a daily basis accordingly.

      The definition of "market price" is impacted very little by cute stories that may or may not have any actual basis in history and not at all by what you want it to mean.

      market price
      Noun
      The price of a commodity when sold in a given market.

      It doesn't matter what it costs the seller to produce the good. Market price is what it can be sold for. If the seller's cost is higher than market price the seller has a problem. If the seller's cost is lower than market price, they have the potential to profit.

      This concept is only difficult if you make it so.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    43. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you can get $4 lobster from the back of a truck in Tijuana, but I'm not touching it with a ten foot pole.

    44. Re:Of course, by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      What The Market Will Bear - the real version of Supply and Demand!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    45. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lived in Maine for a year. In Greenbush, a bit past Bangor.
      There was no lobster.
      Anywhere.
      Seriously. People in Maine are broke as shit. They're eating Taco Bell, not lobster.
      I guess Bar Harbor probably had some lobster places. But they're charging tourist prices, so I'd imagine it's the same price as anywhere outside of Maine, if not more expensive.

    46. Re:Of course, by tgd · · Score: 1

      If you want to order lobster in a restaurant they will still charge "Market Price."

      That's what you want -- market price this year was dirt cheap. You could get them for $4/lbs in grocery stores, and it was common to find twin lobster deals in the $10-$12 range. The places that were still expensive were the places that had fixed lobster pricing.

      I did my part, on a budget, for dealing with this overpopulation.

    47. Re:Of course, by budgenator · · Score: 3, Informative

      In one of Peter Lynch's books he noted that the pilgrims had a clause in their contracts that they could not be fed lobster more than 3 times a week.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    48. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.... Why isn't *everything* on the menu "market price"?

    49. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Udderly fantastic, of course.

    50. Re:Of course, by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      You seem to be unfamiliar with restaurants, but this isn't how the term is intended in the restaurant business. If that were the case, they would just list everything on the menu as "market price". The clear intent is to imply (usually misleadingly) that some prices vary due to the price the restaurant finds at the fish market, which may vary day to day, and this is given as the reason why the restaurant doesn't list a normal price on the menu for those items. Of course, that is mostly a marketing gimmick.

    51. Re:Of course, by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      I only eat truffle fed pork.

    52. Re:Of course, by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      In one of Peter Lynch's books he noted that the pilgrims had a clause in their contracts that they could not be fed lobster more than 3 times a week.

      Pilgrims have a contract?

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    53. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This price has nothing to do with their cost of procurement.
       
      Same as with oil.
       
      Humans are also becoming far too plentiful.

    54. Re:Of course, by O-Deka-K · · Score: 1

      New on the menu: Lobster-fed Lobster with a Fish Stock Reduction Sauce.

    55. Re:Of course, by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      I don't know... every time I go into a restaurant and see the prices on the menu I choke, so the food doesn't go down nearly as well as it ought to.

      --
      -
    56. Re:Of course, by norpy · · Score: 1

      Also where they print a menu with "Fish of the day" which may be a completely different menu item from day to day, necessitating the price being set differently on different days.

      Saves them having to reprint a menu every single day.

    57. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cows fed with Kobe Bryant. I wonder what there free throw percentage is.

      Dunno what the FT % would be, but it would definitely be a ball hog.

      You can make bacon from hogs.

    58. Re:Of course, by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I assumed it was to pay for their passage to the new world, capital goods and supplies. At the end they were contractually obligated to provide 8 or 9 days of labor a week to their contract holders; it puts our current financial situation into a different perspective.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    59. Re:Of course, by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      Lobsturducken. perhaps?

    60. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You network lobsters together??? Why would you do that?

    61. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offer not valid at farmers markets in urban areas with higher average income.

    62. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This summer in Maine you could get lobster off the dock for ~$3 a pound (and that was a better price than the lobsterman would get selling to the wholesale buyer). Fresh lobster out of the refrigerated trucks that park near shopping centers and sell the morning's catch were getting $3.99.

    63. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and only hard-shelled lobsters are shipped long distance. Maine had an overabundance of _soft-shelled_ lobsters this season. These do not travel well and are not shipped long distances or stored in a lobster pound for very long. They are either sold locally or shipped to Atlantic Canada to be processed and frozen. Hard shelled lobsters didn't drop as much in price.

    64. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done, way to ruin a good joke

      Anyways, just replace Kobe Beef with Foi Gras and it works just as well.

    65. Re:Of course, by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be unfamiliar with restaurants, but this isn't how the term is intended in the restaurant business. If that were the case, they would just list everything on the menu as "market price".

      Print the price in the menu or having the server tells you the "market price" is not the market price. When the customer is willing to make the purchase, you have established a market price point. If your price is too high, even though you may call it "market price" it is not as you have not sold any.

      It doesn't matter if it is a restaurant, a car lot, or a shoe store.

      Again, there is what the term means and what you want it to mean, and you continue to confuse the two.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    66. Re:Of course, by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I don't know... every time I go into a restaurant and see the prices on the menu I choke, so the food doesn't go down nearly as well as it ought to.

      Not a problem down here....most of us in LA can cook. Actually, it used to be part of the state entrance exam.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    67. Re:Of course, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be such a disclaimer Nazi.

    68. Re:Of course, by noobermin · · Score: 1

      I literally almost stopped breathing due to laughter. 1000 internets to you sir.

  4. I'll eat the lobsters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm willing to help by eating some of those lobsters. Where do I sign up?

    1. Re:I'll eat the lobsters! by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maine.

  5. Lobster zombies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew it would start somewhere.

  6. This shouldn't be on Idle by calexontheroad66 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a worrisome development and means that overfishing is collapsing the local ecosystem.
    It's no joke, and it's happening all over the world, the scenario is converging for a catastrophic decline in fish populations.

    1. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mad lobster disease, anyone?

    2. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's no joke, and it's happening all over the world, the scenario is converging for a catastrophic decline in fish populations.

      Oh, come on, think of the bright side - This means great news for swarms of inedible poisonous jellyfish that can now thrive in the absence of their natural predators!

      You didn't like swimming, did you?

    3. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or so say the econazis and global warming hoaxists. Meanwhile there isn't a single shred of evidence backing any of these claims up. You leftists will say anything to impose new regulations and taxes on the free market though won't you?

    4. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      While you are correct it seems no one is willing to do what we need too to stop it.

      Ban fishing of some species in some areas and use the navy/coast guard to enforce that.

      Fishermen will have to be bought out by government or forced out of business another way.

    5. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by readin · · Score: 2

      While our governments are busy interfering in health care, hiring and firing practices, agricultural funding and a million things the market would manage - here we have Tragedy of the Commons problem custom-made for government solutions but our governments don't seem very interested in doing something about it.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    6. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by khallow · · Score: 2

      It's a common theme that fishing boats have to fish more, travel further, and fish less desirable species in order to get a catch. This issue is also pretty orthogonal to most environmental issues, particularly, the notorious sky-is-falling rhetoric of catastrophic AGW. It requires some sort of controlled fishing either by governments or fishermen of wild fish stocks. It doesn't require you to buy in to the other issues.

    7. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it is being done, and is being enforced.

      Problem is, often the cost of fines and such are lower than the potential profits.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in heavily chlorinated pools, thank you very much. Don't want all those pesky critters in my swimming water.

    9. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Or under-lobstering!

    10. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "sky is falling" rhetoric of the anti-fishing people is nearly identical to the ones used by the global warming hoaxers. It is too bad you appear to be too naive to see the connection, but this is all about eliminating the free market and imposing totalitarien control.

    11. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by khallow · · Score: 1

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't automatically assume something is wrong just because it's been taken over by the usual mob.

    12. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I meant have the navy/coast guard to enforce it, via sinking or seizure of the vessel.

      If the illegal fishermen agree to leave their boat you allow them to get into whatever lifeboat they have and you seize the fishing vessel. If they refuse you send them and their vessel into the depths.

      Are the profits really going to exceed the cost of the vessel?

    13. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you are part of the problem and an enemy of the free market. It is amazing how someone who sounds smart can be so naive.

    14. Re:This shouldn't be on Idle by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Umm, no.

      Seriously, no.

      If you seize or sink domestic-flagged ships on the high seas (and especially strand the crew), it would be tantamount to having the US Army blow up the local meth lab. I trust you can see why that would be a very stupid idea.
      (Now seizing the domestic vessel once it docks into its local home port? Different story altogether, and I could certainly agree to that, once sufficient evidence is obtained of the deeds which would trigger it).

      If you seize or sink foreign-flagged ships (especially in international waters), you risk actual no-shit war. Sure, the Chilean embassy wouldn't raise too much practical objection over losing a small commercial ship or two, but I'm pretty sure that the Chinese and Russian governments would raise a very large stink over it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  7. Next in the news: by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mad lobster disease.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:Next in the news: by adamanthaea · · Score: 2

      Can't happen. Animals like lobsters can't carry prion diseases.

    2. Re:Next in the news: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's just what they want you to think. those lobsters are mad I tell you! MAD!

      captcha: botulism

    3. Re:Next in the news: by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      How about prawn diseases? ;-D

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  8. So then... by ArcadeNut · · Score: 1

    Why is Lobster still so expensive?

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
    1. Re:So then... by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Why is Lobster still so expensive?

      I live in Seattle and fish here is expensive. but then again, chicken and beef is too expensive also.

      Go figure.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:So then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      actually home slice, its really cheap in the grand scheme. The shit produces a lot of waste in every way and isn't healthy when consumed like most americans do. The factory farming is disgusting by the way.

      And from a market/industry perspective it is also cheap. Heavily subsidized. Why don't you raise some chickens if you need that meat so bad, boy.

    3. Re:So then... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      For fresh lobster outside of Maine, mostly shipping costs. The actual wholesale price, bought in Maine, was really cheap this year due to the glut.

    4. Re:So then... by ruir · · Score: 1

      Absolutely no idea why lobster is so expensive as it used to be a slaves and poors food, and nobody wanted to eat the darn things. Most contracts even specified "lobster, no more than 3 times a week" lol They arent tasty, and they arent exactly protein of high quality, besides the cholesterol problems. And they are darn ugly too. Besides I remember when I was in Angola that they were cheap than most food in upmarket restaurants, and even so. When eating lobster, what counts more is the preparation than the quality of the ingredient actually. Medium/Tiger prawn are so much more tastier than lobster.

    5. Re:So then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because you will pay

    6. Re:So then... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Because its priced at what people are willing to pay.

    7. Re:So then... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So why aren't they sold cheap frozen in a bag like shrimp?

    8. Re:So then... by happylight · · Score: 1

      Lobster has been pretty cheap (compared to what they were usually) actually.

    9. Re:So then... by hubang · · Score: 1

      Why is Lobster still so expensive?

      I've personally seen lobster for sale in Maine for as little as $2.80/lbs. That's cheaper than hotdogs.

    10. Re:So then... by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why is Lobster still so expensive?

      Originally, lobster was originally poor-people's food. In the USA New-England area in both pre-colonial times, they were so plentiful that native americans and early colonists could simply catch them from tidal pools along the shoreline. This made lobsters cheap food to serve toe prisoners and indentured servant (those that bartered for passage to the "new-world" with labor contracts). With the Cod populations crashing, it sounds like we are going back to those times...

      The reason lobster got expensive was that transportation costs used to be a large part of the price. Also over time, with most profitible businesses, often the infrastructure determines the price more than the supply. People that own parts of the infrastructure (fishing territories, relay-holding ponds, lobster gangs, etc) demand a price level to keep their profit margin the same even when the underlying commodity supply goes up which would nominally send the price down.

    11. Re:So then... by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      They arent tasty, and they arent exactly protein of high quality, besides the cholesterol problems. And they are darn ugly too. Besides I remember when I was in Angola that they were cheap than most food in upmarket restaurants, and even so. When eating lobster, what counts more is the preparation than the quality of the ingredient actually. Medium/Tiger prawn are so much more tastier than lobster.

      "Aren't tasty"? Really? I usually eat them straight out of the shell (preparation: steamed, rarely boiled). No extra fatty butter or other sauce. Mind you, I don't over-salt or over-flavour my regular food either, maybe that's why you don't get any taste out of them? I don't recall un-sauced shrimp (prawn) being any tastier, just a different taste and texture.

    12. Re:So then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this would differ from literally everything else in what way?

    13. Re:So then... by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aren't tasty? what? Lobster is the ultimate white meat.

      preparation? A live lobster and a pot of boiling water. This is not hard, people. If you can;t tell if your lobster is alive, it probably isn't, and never cook dead (or dying) lobster.

      Quick primer. Boil until the shell is bright red, plunging the lobster in headfirst. It never realized it was dead.

      Serve with baked potato, corn on the cob or greeen geans, plenty of melted butter available. Crack the claws off and open, pull out the meat, drop it in the butter. inCrack off the tail, tear off the tail fins and suck on them like candy :). take a cunck of claw meat and eat that, making room for the tail in the butter. If you're lazy, this is it. Otherwise, the knuckles above the claw have meat, each leg has a thread of meat, those tail fins usually do also. there is meat all through the body (carapace), and a little work nearly doubles your haul. Or give it to someone who knows how to get in there. Avoid the tomalley if you don't know what it is.

      How to tell if yo got a Maine lobster? Measure the carapace, which had better measure between 3 1/2 and 5 inches from the end of the carapace to the edge of the eye socket. Cheating is very rare in Maine waters, lobstermen will send each other to jail over this... If it is shorter, good chance it came from Canada, or possibly Massachussetts. Those big spots the tail when raw/live? That is not a Maine lobster, probably a Longostino, which is not a lobster. Most are actually shrimp.

      Sorry, I love lobster, and miss it so.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    14. Re:So then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heavily subsidized? How are Lobster fishermen receiving subsidies at all?

      Clearly you have never raised chickens or you would know intimately well why 'factory farming' is disgusting. They are animals. Even free range chickens will lay in their own poop despite your best efforts to stop them. I don't understand why some people decide meat is disgusting and wasteful while eating other forms of life are not. They both are part of nature, they both are life, we consume both because we are mammals. Deal with consuming other lifeforms as part of the human condition or take action to remove yourself from being part of your perceived problem.

    15. Re:So then... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Something tells me the leasing office would look down on my installing a chicken coop in my apartment.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:So then... by Desler · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. That's the whole point.

    17. Re:So then... by compro01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lobster doesn't freeze well.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    18. Re:So then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No idea. They're ocean-going cockroaches. I've never understood why otherwise well-fed people would choose to eat them.

    19. Re:So then... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Why is Lobster still so expensive?

      I've personally seen lobster for sale in Maine for as little as $2.80/lbs. That's cheaper than hotdogs.

      Exactly. And with the price of steak going up due to global warming impacts on cattle foodstocks, it's even cheaper to eat lobster, relatively.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    20. Re:So then... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Why don't you start a vegetable farm if you need those carrots so bad(ly), boy(?). Your insult is stupid.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:So then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are, at least around where I live, but I've never personally seen 'cheap' frozen lobster. The stuff is prohibitively expensive, more expensive than fresh lobster.

    22. Re:So then... by LocutusMIT · · Score: 1

      Add some lemon juice to the melted butter. The combination makes lobster even more incredible.

      And as for introducing a new person to tomalley, try spreading a bit on a small piece of toast. You'd be surprised at how quickly a person can go from "Ewwww..." to scraping the entire thoracic cavity obsessively in order to get every last bit of that ambrosia.

    23. Re:So then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maine hat a HUGE glut of soft-shell lobsters this summer. Perhaps the lobsters molted early due to the extremely mild winter/spring we had. Soft-shelled lobsters do not travel well and are only sold locally or shipped to Atlantic Canada to be processed/frozen. The price of hard-shelled did not drop as much, and these are the Maine lobsters that are shipped.

  9. Don't tell my wife by John3 · · Score: 1

    If she finds out about this she will demand that we dine out at the local lobster restaurant until the fish/lobster balance is restored.

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  10. but wtf are they doing for garlic butter? by swschrad · · Score: 1

    no wonder it's called "wild" lobster. the boors.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  11. Yum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lobster fed lobster sounds delicious.

    1. Re:Yum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like bacon fed bacon.

  12. Where's PETA? Oh there they are. by webbiedave · · Score: 0

    FTA: "allows him to observe a juvenile lobster tethered with a rope to a spot on the ocean floor."

    He wants to study cannibalism, huh? Just wait until PETA reads that juicy little line! They'll eat him alive.

    1. Re:Where's PETA? Oh there they are. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      He wants to study cannibalism, huh? Just wait until PETA reads that juicy little line! They'll eat him alive.

      Human Flesh, the only meat PETA will eat.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Where's PETA? Oh there they are. by kenorland · · Score: 1

      There are no sea kittens involved, so that's OK with PETA.

    3. Re:Where's PETA? Oh there they are. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      No, just sea-cockroaches. ;)

    4. Re:Where's PETA? Oh there they are. by budgenator · · Score: 2

      Considering the primitive brain those bugs have, I fail to see why anyone would be surprised at their cannibalism, the rule of thumb in the ocean is anything you can eat, you do eat. 90% of my goldfish and koi fry are lost to cannibalism and predation.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Where's PETA? Oh there they are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the primitive brain those bugs have, I fail to see why anyone would be surprised at their cannibalism, the rule of thumb in the ocean is anything you can eat, you do eat. 90% of my goldfish and koi fry are lost to cannibalism and predation.

      Since when is a primitive brain a prerequisite for practicing cannibalism?

  13. Wow! Just like hedge fund managers... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    No wait. Hedge fund managers would eat their own young. Without salt.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Wow! Just like hedge fund managers... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've heard... wait, without salt?? The barbarians!

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  14. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We go to the market and see the fish case always stocked. But the thing to realize, that as species are being fished out, they fill the case with other species. And prices on some species are skyrocketing.

    Farming isn't very viable in many cases because they feed the farmed fish wild caught fish and the cages pollute the ecosystem so badly that the wild fish start to die out. Trout and Talpia are the only ones IIRC that are farmed sustainably - definitely not salmon.

    And the thing that kills me, the next time you look at the fish case in the super market, bare in mind that at least half of what's in there will be thrown away.

    We are so wasteful that it's just disgusting.

    1. Re:Exactly by robmv · · Score: 2

      This will fix by itself, no food for humans, humans will resort to cannibalism. Sometimes I think we deserve to disappear from this planet

    2. Re:Exactly by khallow · · Score: 1

      Farming isn't very viable in many cases because they feed the farmed fish wild caught fish and the cages pollute the ecosystem so badly that the wild fish start to die out.

      That gets fixed by switching to the many cases that are viable.

      Trout and Talpia are the only ones IIRC that are farmed sustainably - definitely not salmon.

      Wikipedia disagrees. They claim salmon and carp are the most farmed fish in the world.

    3. Re:Exactly by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Salmon farming is playing helll with wild populations, but other than that it's very sustainable. Just ask the seals.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Exactly by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      They claim salmon and carp are the most farmed fish in the world.

      Just because they're the most farmed fish in the world doesn't mean they are sustainable. Passenger pigeons, at one point, were the most-harvested bird species in the US... turns out that wasn't sustainable. One difference between passenger pigeons and salmon is what the diminishing resource is... in the case of the pigeons, it was the pigeons themselves that were hunted to extinction. For salmon, the resource is ocean/shore localities suitable for farming.

      Carp, I'd guess, is sustainable, since it can be farmed much like tilapia.

      Salmon, on the other hand, is not really sustainable using current practices, though there is promise for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) and other methods to improve sustainability.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:Exactly by denis-The-menace · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And we will.

      I remember reading about a TV show with Dean Stockwell that predicted 911 and was predicting a massive reduction in world population.

      Now I know how it will happen:
      http://www.businessinsider.com/peak-phosphorus-and-food-production-2012-12

      This, add Monsanto and laws against keeping seeds and voila: Starvation.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    6. Re:Exactly by khallow · · Score: 1

      Just because they're the most farmed fish in the world doesn't mean they are sustainable. Passenger pigeons, at one point, were the most-harvested bird species in the US... turns out that wasn't sustainable.

      Farmed != harvested. It's pretty deceptive to equate the two. For example, if passenger pigeons had been farmed instead of just harvested in the wild, they would still be with us today.

      A second bit of deception comes from the term, "sustainable". Sustainability is not a bit you set, but a matter of degree. Merely farming a fish that was previously harvested in the wild is a huge improvement in sustainability. Also virtually everything is sustainable in small amounts, be it fish farming or nuclear meltdowns.

      If one were being fair and truthful, one wouldn't say that salmon farming isn't sustainable, but that it isn't sustainable at its current volume under current circumstances (an assertion which I'm not convinced is true BTW).

    7. Re:Exactly by khallow · · Score: 1

      Until we get our phosphorus from plentiful sources that are currently not economically to mine.

    8. Re:Exactly by kwoff · · Score: 1

      Well, that settles it, as I'm sure a "genius investor" has no self-interest in saying what he says.

    9. Re:Exactly by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Farmed != harvested. It's pretty deceptive to equate the two.

      Not when I address that issue in my very next sentence.

      If one were being fair and truthful, one wouldn't say that salmon farming isn't sustainable, but that it isn't sustainable at its current volume under current circumstances (an assertion which I'm not convinced is true BTW).

      Except that is what I said: "Salmon, on the other hand, is not really sustainable using current practices." Why are you insinuating I am not being fair or truthful?

      I fail to see any item of discussion in your post I did not address in my original response, other than your accusation of me being unfair or lying (which is clearly unfounded).

      If you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, I'd be happy to continue it. Otherwise, bugger off.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    10. Re:Exactly by lennier · · Score: 1

      Until we get our phosphorus from plentiful sources that are currently not economically to mine.

      ... which will require raising food prices to make it economical to mine, which will cause the poor to starve, which will reduce the surplus population. Hurrah for the free market! Equilibrium is attained! O mighty magical invisible hand, we praise you for your benefits!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    11. Re:Exactly by khallow · · Score: 1

      Farmed != harvested. It's pretty deceptive to equate the two.

      Not when I address that issue in my very next sentence.

      No. That's not how you address inappropriate comparisons. You just don't make them in the first place. And if the pigeons had been farmed, they wouldn't be the "diminishing resource".

      For salmon, you don't even give a diminishing resource. Here, "ocean/shore localities suitable for farming" don't become less suited for salmon farming just because there is a farm there for any period of time. Sure, you can't make infinite acreage of salmon farms, but everything else would be just as "unsustainable" in that trivial, uninteresting sense because everything relies on finite resources such as land, human labor, information storage, whatever.

      Except that is what I said: "Salmon, on the other hand, is not really sustainable using current practices." Why are you insinuating I am not being fair or truthful?

      You're not being fair because you label salmon fish farming "unsustainable" because of diminishing real estate, while other forms of fish farming, which have the very same real estate problem, get labeled as sustainable.

      Similarly, you're not being truthful because you haven't actually come up with a sustainability problem with salmon farming. The real estate that is used for salmon farming can just continue to be used for salmon farming indefinitely.

    12. Re:Exactly by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or we'll develop some technology that makes the food-related cost similar to what it is now. That's another "invisible hand" thing that happens. Before we chicken-little maybe we should consider the availability of phosphorus outside of the obvious sources.

    13. Re:Exactly by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Here, "ocean/shore localities suitable for farming" don't become less suited for salmon farming just because there is a farm there for any period of time.

      Obviously, you don't have any knowledge of salmon farming or you would know that salmon farming *does* make the real estate used for it unusable after a period of time with current methods. Decades for recovery.

      You're talking out your ass again. I'm done with this discussion.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    14. Re:Exactly by khallow · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you don't have any knowledge of salmon farming or you would know that salmon farming *does* make the real estate used for it unusable after a period of time with current methods. Decades for recovery.

      How? I see nothing mentioned on the internet about this alleged problem even from sites that discuss the relative sustainability of salmon farming.

  15. Worried! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    I hope this leaves enough cave lobster for my Dwarves!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  16. Farming/fishing subsidies by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Agricultural and fishing subsidies are bad for everyone and everything except the people whose livelihoods being subsidized.

    Everyone pays. We pay taxes to save people who don't want to submit to market discipline and find it easier to lobby lawmakers than switch away from failing business models. We pay below-the-odds for shit food that's bad for us (we eat WAY too much meat and corn syrup) and makes us fat; we pay more for medicine to treat people as a consequence. We pay for the negative externalities for the environmental destruction of the forests and oceans.

    And we're shelling out for these fat pigs, while government budgets are under pressure everywhere. Killing subsidies is an easy fix.

    We pay, pay, pay in every way, while a bunch of fat cat fishermen and agri-businessmen make out like bandits. Somebody needs to find the balls to put an end to this colossal scam, and have the courage to END all primary production subsidies everywhere, once and for all.

    1. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Amouth · · Score: 1

      FYI health wise, eating marine meat (fish & shell fish) is completely different then eating red meat.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Remove the ability for corporations to donate to political campaigns/politicians at all, this problem goes away.
      Limit personal contributions also, so the "heads" of these corporations cant just continue to buy elections.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    3. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by readin · · Score: 1

      Remove the ability for corporations to donate to political campaigns/politicians at all, this problem goes away. Limit personal contributions also, so the "heads" of these corporations cant just continue to buy elections.

      Even better would be removing the ability of politicians to donate tax money to corporations. Also reduce the amount of government interference in the free market and you'll remove the reasons that corporations donate to political campaigns/politicians.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    4. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Qualified agreement, but exactly how/what do you mean?
      I think your method would throw the baby out with the bathwater, I would think "no govt interference in free market" would limit some good things:
      Ability for courts to establish a level playing field ( to do so is simply intrusive ).
      Ability for the executive/legislature to tax ( I don't think I need to go on with that ),
          establish some kinds of foreign relations ( anything having to do with economics would seem overreaching there ),
          ability to establish reasonable working conditions ( the argument would be that the workers should do that, but we have seen where that goes already )
      Probably more I cant think of now.

      Human nature is ugly, people have and will abuse those less powerful than they ( otherwise, we could both argue for anarchy ).
      Some level of regulation is required, or we might as well just go straight for "man with biggest virtual club sets the rules" and fight it out.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    5. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      And eating good red meat is a completely different than eating the crap sold in the stores. Then again the red meat I eat comes from the deer I shoot, the cattle a family friend raises, or the bison another family friend raises. The beef and bison are small herds (10-14 cattle and 4-6 bison) on about 40 acres each that are fed a proper diet, aren't pumped full of hormones, never see a feed lot, aren't pumped full of antibiotics, and processed at a quality butcher.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    6. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Amouth · · Score: 1

      Right, but his complaint was that we eat too much meat and it causes health issues, and this article is about seafood. My point being is that eating more seafood isn't going to cause health issues, at least not the ones he is commenting about because we "eat too much meat".

      Oh and my the way, most of what you listed is "sold in stores" now days, it just isn't the main consumer purchase as it's very expensive comparatively.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    7. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by readin · · Score: 1

      Qualified agreement, but exactly how/what do you mean? I think your method would throw the baby out with the bathwater, I would think "no govt interference in free market" would limit some good things: Ability for courts to establish a level playing field ( to do so is simply intrusive ). Ability for the executive/legislature to tax ( I don't think I need to go on with that ), establish some kinds of foreign relations ( anything having to do with economics would seem overreaching there ), ability to establish reasonable working conditions ( the argument would be that the workers should do that, but we have seen where that goes already ) Probably more I cant think of now.

      Human nature is ugly, people have and will abuse those less powerful than they ( otherwise, we could both argue for anarchy ). Some level of regulation is required, or we might as well just go straight for "man with biggest virtual club sets the rules" and fight it out.

      There are reasons I didn't say "no govt interference in free market" but instead wrote "reduce the amount of government interference in the free market ".

      Basically the government should get involved to
      1. keep things people and protect rights (such as property rights meaning the right to your own property, not the right to take someone else's property)
      2. allow unions to form (once they've formed they can take care of themselves)
      3. create transparency (one of the assumptions that leads to the wonders of a model free market is that people have enough information to make good choices)
      4. prevent monopolies (another assumption is that there is competition)
      5. Dealing with tragedies of of commons (like the problem of overfishing)

      Giving subsidies doesn't help any of those goals. Telling companies who they can fire and hire doesn't do that either. Requiring that companies provide health care to employees doesn't do any of those things. The American government currently does thousands of things that have nothing to do with any of those goals.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    8. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, get your head out of the sand mate. Subsidies are everywhere, even in countries that don't let corps donate to political campaigns. So obviously that's not the problem, not even close. The problem is that people are stubbornly clinging on to an economic system that became outdated 30 years ago. The problem is that Money has become the most sought after commodity, not food, clothes, shelter or anything essential, but Money.

    9. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, and I should have read closer.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    10. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Agricultural and fishing subsidies are bad for everyone and everything except the people whose livelihoods being subsidized.

      I know a lot of farmers, and they all want to know where these subsidies are as they sure as hell aren't getting them.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remove the ability for corporations to donate to political campaigns/politicians at all, this problem goes away.
      Limit personal contributions also, so the "heads" of these corporations cant just continue to buy elections.

      What about unions composed of millions government workers, with forced membership and therefore dues, and that donate the majority of those dues to politicians who increase union pay and benefits?

      That's OK?

    12. Re:Farming/fishing subsidies by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      True, I was trying to point out that red meat doesn't seem to be as big of a problem that people make it out to be if you are getting the good quality stuff which isn't what most people are buying. What is mostly sold at the grocery stores where it is really fatty, raised a cheaply as possible, poor diet, lots of hormones and antibiotics, processed in mass, low quality, low cost stuff. At my last checkup I asked my doctor about the quantity of red meat I eat and he commented that it wasn't a problem as I am eating much leaner meat than most people and I am more active than most people. Bison and venison are incredibly lean and even the beef we get is leaner than the regular stuff in the stores.

      My extended family and I (8 households of 2 to 5 people each) probably do eat more meat than we should but then it is all the high quality good stuff as we end up splitting a bison, a cow, and as much wild game as my uncle, cousin, and I can shoot. We hunt ducks, geese, pheasants, bear (these we don't get very often), deer, turkey, and grouse so there is a good variety of critters. Most of the wild game isn't available in the stores as you might see duck but that is farm raised just like the turkeys.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  17. Circle of life by vvaduva · · Score: 1

    Why is this bad? It sounds to me like the population will control itself and there is built in limitations to the growth rate...who gives a shit what a little lobster does? They don't feel anything anyways!

    1. Re:Circle of life by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Of course lobsters feel. As do humans, who happen to have been doing the exact same thing to each other for a long, long time.

    2. Re:Circle of life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it can cause a death spiral: lobster population reaches critical mass and crashes, leaving little food for the already underpopulated predators, whose population then crashes, ad infinitum. Eventually the entire food chain for a particular ecosystem is decimated, from which it may take years to recover.

  18. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...welcome our new overpopulated cannibalistic lobster overlords.

  19. mmmmmm by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    lobster fed lobster stuffed with lobster.

    1. Re:mmmmmm by jkiller · · Score: 0

      lobster fed lobster stuffed with lobster.

      I still prefer mine the old fashioned way... Lobster stuffed with tacos.

    2. Re:mmmmmm by Abreu · · Score: 1

      You jest, but once upon a time you were able to get cheap lobster with black beans and rice on Rosarito Beach, with freshly made tortillas and salsa. ...ah, those were the days...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
  20. Please explain once more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the fuck are lobsters expensive and considered luxury food? Supply obviously is far greater than demand.

    1. Re:Please explain once more by v1 · · Score: 2

      Why the fuck are lobsters expensive and considered luxury food? Supply obviously is far greater than demand.

      Quantity available is only one factor in price. Cost to acquire, transport, store, and market also add in. Live lobsters are expensive to transport and store, and lobster meet turns to mush if frozen.

      There's an old anecdote that's appropriate here. If there were a huge pile of gold bars on the moon, it wouldn't be economical to go get them.

      (seafood is typically cheap on the coasts, where beef is expensive. in the central and midwest, beef is cheap and seafood is expensive)

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Please explain once more by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Because they're actually still kind of hard to catch? It's either baited cages or scuba divers with a bag. Either one is much more time intensive than dropping a huge net behind a ship then hauling it back in.

    3. Re:Please explain once more by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      People incorrectly think that lobsters get caught in the traps, and never get out.

      In actual fact, they tend to hang out in the traps, and then leave at some point.

      The bait and the shelter from the traps makes them great places to visit.

      (source: various scientific papers)

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Please explain once more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one dives for lobsters in Maine. It might even be illegal.

      One of the reasons the price is still high outside of Maine is that there was a HUGE catch of soft-shell lobsters this year, which do not travel well. They are either sold locally or shipped to processing plants in Atlantic Canada to be cooked, shelled, and frozen. The price got so low Canadian lobstermen blocked the gates to the plants so Maine trucks couldn't deliver their cheaper lobster for a while.

      There were much fewer hard-shelled lobsters caught, and the price was much more expensive. These are the ones that are shipped or stored in lobster pounds.

  21. Decline In Fishstocks? Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is due to shortages in butter, especially drawn butter.

    There needs to be some sort of government subsidy to increase butter production, before it's too late!

  22. I think we're approaching... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think we're approaching a fishcal cliff...

  23. So how much? by jameshofo · · Score: 1

    How much more do you have to pay to get a lobster that has only eaten lobster!

    --
    Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
  24. New Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we reduce the population of lobsters proportionally by eating them? Seems like a logical solution

  25. Too many you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send them my way. I'll eat as many as you can ship one person.

  26. First lobster cannibal's thoughts by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    "No wonder those humans are always trying to eat us...we're delicious!"

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:First lobster cannibal's thoughts by RajivSLK · · Score: 5, Informative

      Interesting fact about lobsters, they haven't always been considered delicious. In colonial times, lobsters were considered "poverty food." They were harvested from tidal pools and served to children, to prisoners, and to indentured servants. In Massachusetts, some of the servants rebelled and demanded that they would not be forced to eat lobster more than three times a week.

      In fact I met a old woman who told me that, when she was young, she would hide and eat her school lunch- her family was too poor to afford anything other than lobster and the other kids would tease her.

      I just goes to show you how society, culture and advertising controls our behaviour, beliefs and taste buds.

      As far as this lobster "overpopulated" lobster nonsense- call me when you can walk along the shore at low tide and just pick them up by the dozens (as was common in years past). That would be the natural equilibrium population before we started commercially harvesting.

      This whole "overpopulated" is clearly perpetuated by someone who wants increased quotas.

    2. Re:First lobster cannibal's thoughts by sodul · · Score: 2

      True story from when I started at Google, back in the good days years ago. It was on the last company wide ski trip, talking to an other employee.

        - So where is you office on the campus, what is your closest cafe?
        - It is Cafe Foo. (not real name)
        - Oh I like cafe Foo, good food.
        - NO! IT SUCKS! IT'S LOBSTER ALL THE TIME!!!

      She was dead serious. Nobody's complaining about too much lobster or kobe beef these days.

    3. Re:First lobster cannibal's thoughts by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      Nova Scotia(Canada) has a law that lobster can't be fed to prisoners. It was considered cruel and unusual punishment. Lobster used to be considered cheap meat. Always makes me laugh.

    4. Re:First lobster cannibal's thoughts by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      Look at all the 'traditional foods' around the world and you will notice one thing: it is all poor people's food.

      I think you are correct about the overpopulation, and it could be that they are manipulating the numbers a bit.
      They could simply be comparing the number of lobsters to the number of other sea life and thus they seem inflated.
      But if you look at the number of TOTAL sea life, it would look disastrous.

      Sadly like so many others, they care not for the sustainability of our ecosystem but for their pocket book. When will people realize that when we try to conserve nature we are trying to conserve OUR habitat. Planet Earth does not care for us. It has been through worse and when we are gone, it will simply move on.

    5. Re:First lobster cannibal's thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In colonial times, lobsters were considered "poverty food." They were harvested from tidal pools and served to children, to prisoners, and to indentured servants. In Massachusetts, some of the servants rebelled and demanded that they would not be forced to eat lobster more than three times a week.

      Try eating lobster seven days a week, without much else, for months. You'd rebel, and I would. It's not a nutritionally complete meal by itself, especially for children.

    6. Re:First lobster cannibal's thoughts by nobaloney · · Score: 1

      This whole "overpopulated" is clearly perpetuated by someone who wants increased quotas.

      It's not the overpopulation of the lobster; it's the underpopulation of their food.

    7. Re:First lobster cannibal's thoughts by Vlado · · Score: 1

      At least two reasons why this can be a problem:

      - Some people just don't like seafood or lobster in particular.
      - Even those who do like it will eventually get fed-up with it. The best restaurant that I ever frequented for business lunches was the one where menu never repeated itself in about a year or so. It's not so much that the food was always great but that you actually could never say: "Oh it that again."

  27. Welcome to the final act of humanity on Earth by Agram · · Score: 1

    This is what the last "great" deed of humanity will be once we decimate the food chain and our food sources wither away... I, for one, give the lobster species a honorary status of Nostradamus with pincers.

  28. You've got to respect... by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whoever first ate lobster.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:You've got to respect... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      But not as much as the guy who was hungry enough to first eat an oyster.

    2. Re:You've got to respect... by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      I don't know about respect. I've got compassion for anyone who is starving to death. People in that situation will eat anything: grass, bark, dirt, rocks, rotten things, people, etc. You can be certain that people have eaten anything they can get their hands on. Most things that turn out to not kill you ends up in our regular diet, subject to cultural preferences.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    3. Re:You've got to respect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have to wonder about some foods though. All those foods that require lye based preparation? Wow.

    4. Re:You've got to respect... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You've got to respect... Whoever first ate lobster.

      You've got to remember, it's only very recently, and still only in the western world, that people have had more food than they can eat. The story of human history is one of huge numbers of peasants who were just barely avoiding starving to death. That's why the majority of the population can digest lactose... Not getting nutrition from that extra bit of food (dairy) meant the difference between surviving and perhaps starving to death.

      You only have to go back to around WWII to see most of the western world on the edge of starvation. In the US, the great depression before WWII had about 25% of the population starving, to varying degrees. In Europe and Asia, hunger was rampant in countries that were rebuilding, even decades after WWII ended.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  29. Overfishing? by gatfirls · · Score: 1

    The article I read stated that conservation has a hand in it. Kind of like the wildfires getting worse because of burn laws reducing smaller fire occurrence. Honestly, I am waiting for Mayor Quimby to take over at this point.

  30. mmm-mmm by proxy318 · · Score: 1

    Lobster stuff lobster.

    --
    Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
  31. I'd do the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you ask me, I'd take lobster over tuna any day.

  32. Never been observed? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe you're too young to remember, or you can't find it easily on the Internets, but back in the 60s when I was a kid, my family used to own French House Island off Jonesport in Maine, and we'd be up there every summer.

    It had been observed then.

    Now, that said, there's nothing better than Maine Lobster. We used to make blueberry pancakes from the blueberries on the island, and eat fresh lobster in butter, as well as clams we dug up and mussels.

    But just because you can't find it observed this century doesn't mean it's "never been observed".

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Never been observed? by phayes · · Score: 1

      TFA _way_ overstates how rare cannibalism was. It may not have been observed but then how exactly were we to know as it is only with the infrared camera developed/deployed recently that the researcher started to notice cases. Had he been performing the same research decades ago he would almost certainly have noticed instances before.

      The current high population levels will make cannibalism more frequent but that is the case in just about all carnivorous populations.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:Never been observed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trying so hard not to hate on you for your crazy childhood. ;)

    3. Re:Never been observed? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Well, it was fun, at least.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Never been observed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has been observed in traps/captivity, not in the wild (which required an underwater infrared camera and a tethered (so it couldn't wander out of frame) juvenile lobster

    5. Re:Never been observed? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      You can also tag lobsters. We used to band them in the 60s.

      And code numbers on the band.

      Hence: observed.

      You mean filmed.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  33. Re:Of course - Or Premium Foodie Choice by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Real foodies only eat wild raised lobsters fed on bison that eat nut grass.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  34. template screwed up again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    incompetence seems to abound at slashdot.

  35. "Obvious" solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course we choose the obvious solution of harvesting more lobsters instead of restoring the natural balance and trying to increase their natural predators.

  36. They're just feeling crabby. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't you?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  37. They are not "resorting" to anything. by azav · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lobsters do this anyway.

    Source: my degree in Marine Biology.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:They are not "resorting" to anything. by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      What, proof by authority? Well, I sneer at that, and will do my own... wait, you're right.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:They are not "resorting" to anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. Nothing tastier to a decapod shellfish than another decapod shellfish freshly molted. Culture is a bitch.

  38. Am I the only one... by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    Who had the thought of going up to Maine and haggling for pounds and pounds of delicious lobster?

  39. Mmmmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lobster-fed lobster. Droooool.

    I think that may be even better than my long desired Panda Burger.

  40. Interesting? Fuck'n informative/insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People think you're joking, but that's how prion born diseases start.

  41. So, this is how it ends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without butter sauce.

  42. Supply & Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please wake up out there. Now we have an over abundance of lobsters but the price at the super market won't reflect that at all, ever. The dogma of capitalism rests upon faulty notions such as free enterprise and supply and demand. But with devices such as futures contracts supply and demand really no longer exist. The right wing might want to get a clue about this. The other blatant example are ranchers shooting cattle to keep the price of beef high.
                              Going past that just why are we allowing fishing in the N. Atlantic at all? Fish need three things to be useful to humanity. One is clean water, the next is breeding grounds and the next is food. When we allow commercial fishing and even most sport fishing we destroy there ability to feed. Our cities destroy the oceans with toxins and worst of all the salt marsh areas are so highly valued for real estate that the breeding grounds have vanished.
                              Solutions : Disallow water pollution. Remove all buildings and land fill from coastal swamps and brackish waters, Ban all commercial fishing and limit sports fishing. Do this for thirty years and watch the oceans return to health. And if we are really lucky the number of severe storms may also be reduced as well as ocean warming. Or we could simply keep making excuses until we exterminate all life on this planet.
                                Take a look at rivers and lakes where the states ask people not to eat fish or at least to rarely eat fish. Now think about where the crops and livestock you eat get their water and feed. We are is serious trouble.

  43. I blame by Krojack · · Score: 4, Funny

    all the vegetarians out there... They should eat more meat.

  44. Save Larry the Lobster!!!!! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1
    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  45. so sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there really isn't a good way to make melted butter available underwater

  46. Collapsing fish stocks? by 0b1knob · · Score: 1

    The main predators of lobsters are moray ells and the Wolffish, both of which are adapted to feed on crustaceans and have the jaws to crack lobster shells. The type of fish mentioned in the article couldn't eat a lobster to save their lives. The inference that greater lobster populations are the result of lower cod and halibut populations is as as silly as the inference that it is all because of global warming.

  47. FTFY by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    This is happening because the oceans are warming:

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/science/121203/lobster-cannibals-caused-warm-seasons

    "'We've got the lobsters feeding back on themselves just because they're so abundant,' said Richard Wahle, a marine sciences professor at the University of Maine, who is supervising the research. 'It's never been observed just out in the open like this,' he said." Abundance caused by populations of their predators collapsing.

    owing to the increased temperature in the oceans... owing to global warming.

    This is what happens when you inadvertently screw with the predator-prey relationships which have worked themselves out over millions of years.

    Just wait 30 years and the FTFY will be :

    "'We've got the people feeding back on themselves just because there's so little food' "It's never been observed just out in the open like this,' " We have overpopulation relative to collapsing food supply caused in turn by the collapse of the ecosystem, starting 30 years ago in the oceans..."

    1. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my God, we are all gonna die!!! Arrgggghhhhhh! Global Warming is going to kill us all! Arrrgghhhhhhh!

      Save us Al Gore. SAVE US!!!

  48. Fish Stocks Collapse by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Everyone must be clamoring to sell Fish now. A smart investor buys low and sells high. A wise investor has a sandwich-heavy portfolio to protect against market crashes.