They do have the best tasting meat. Still kinda scary.

ginandbacon: They do have the best tasting meat. Still kinda scary.

softshells are easier for noobs to eat (because they can basically use their hands to tear the shell) -- they cook quicker, the meat is denser -- but the shells are not as full.

but hardshells are the tastier. the meat is sweeter (tastier is what some people say). there is more meat (that is the shell is fuller)

You can't get there from here.

©

Red Lobster has fresh lobster year round.

Global climate change concerns are battling with lobster roll and fried clams jonesing...

Hardshells are better. 1 1/2 pounds.

AverageAmericanGuy: Red Lobster has fresh lobster year round.

Don't make me hurt you.

I just found 'em!

Maybe because we had a full warm summer week in February that kick started spring up here? Anyone else remember the >9000 pollen count? I know my nose still does.

AverageAmericanGuy: Red Lobster has fresh lobster year round.

Nice, that'll anger the nasty sea bug eaters.
/seriously, most overrated farking sea bug

Thisbymaster: Maybe because we had a full warm summer week in February that kick started spring up here? Anyone else remember the >9000 pollen count? I know my nose still does.

This. Everything is early this year in the northeast

whyRpeoplesostupid: Thisbymaster: Maybe because we had a full warm summer week in February that kick started spring up here? Anyone else remember the >9000 pollen count? I know my nose still does.

This. Everything is early this year in the northeast

All over the east coast, the cycle of blooming plants (daffodils, wisteria, then honeysuckle) started a month early.

Expensive as hell to get blue crabs here in the Chicago area. Was raised near the Gulf coast in sw La. and we ate crabs almost every weekend growing up.

AverageAmericanGuy: Red Lobster has fresh lobster year round.

Philistine!

AverageAmericanGuy: Red Lobster has fresh lobster year round.

3/10 - Any higher rating, and I would be just buttering you up.

The new Oldmobiles are in early this year.

Wow...wrong thread? Somebody tell me this was the wrong thread before I forget what forum I'm in.

Rat: Wow...wrong thread? Somebody tell me this was the wrong thread before I forget what forum I'm in.

Actually you'd be pretty damn close.

Rat: Wow...wrong thread? Somebody tell me this was the wrong thread before I forget what forum I'm in.

I think this is the thread where people talk about how they love to eat giant flavorless insects once they slather them with butter.

I'm heading to my favorite seafood restaurant in Bar Harbor in 26 minutes for some delicious tasty lobster, so this thread is relevant to my interests.

LOL, j/k, going to Seal Harbor instead. Bar Harbor is for tourists.

/Oh God, I'm a lobster hipster!
//Lobhipster?

I had some lobster when I visited my family a couple of weeks ago. It was definitely hard shell. It came from the North Shore of New Brunswick, where the water is colder than Maine. No doubt the warm water slash warm winter theory is correct. Just another tiny brick in the wall of climate change.

I read that the cygnets (baby swans) hatched early this year--by early they mean, earlier than any time since the 1300s. Monks have cultivated the wild swans for centuries (in much of the UK, swans are a royal perogative and thus people can't hunt or farm them without royal permission). Last winter was definitely an extraordinary one. That makes 326 months of unusual weather in a row. I wonder if the answer could be -- global warming? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

I like lobster but it's a royal pest to eat. Mothergoose says that you could starve to death eating it.

In the Maritime Provinces, lobster-fishing is seasonal because of the colder water, but they tend to take smaller lobster, while in Maine, they fish year-round but manage the stocks more closely, with higher limits on the smallest lobster you can keep. This leads to a bit of cross-border irritation, but lobster fishermen are extremely jealous of their territority and their traps (they'll cut you up if you touch their traps) any way, so lobstermen aren't exactly gregarious. Fish are, to some extent, a situational good--although the roaming species are just the opposite--impossible to corral and control, even at the national or regional level.

All I care about is that the management of the stocks is scientific enough to prevent crashes.

The problem is that each generation of scientists, like each generation of government bureaucrats, corporations and fishermen, base their expectations on the immediate past. This can mask long term declines so that "normal" is always a few years or decades ago. This is a tragic situation for stocks and for the fishing industry. "Management" becomes an illusion of control when in reality the fish stocks are in rapid decline.

We've already lost 95% of the big fish--the human tendancy to take the biggest, best breeders is actually causing seafood to evolve rapidly towards smaller sized fish and shellfish, that breed earlier and produce less spawn.

I hope we can wise up before we go belly-up. There's plenty of blame to go around to everybody involved. No need to point fingers at one interest group or nation here.

My guess is that there will be a fish war between Canada and the USA when the warming waters push the lobster and other valuable fish stocks a bit further North. Already, the blue crab is being fished much further North than it was (it's a famous product of Chesapeake Bay, which is an ecological tragedy in some respects, although a success story in others). The same thing is happending in European waters, where the blue crab is now being fished commercially as far North as Scotland.

The decline of fish stocks has not only forced fishermen to turn to crustaceans, it has increased the stocks of crustaceans because their young are not being eaten by as many fish, but there's a risk that we'll crash the crab and lobster fisheries, and then move on to whatever is left, working our way down from the most desirable species to the barely edible. We are already using massive amounts of small fish ("sardines" and worse) to feed our farmed salmon, tulapia, etc.

Anybody care for a slice of jelly fish?

In addition to Environment Canada, I worked at Fisheries and Oceans many years ago.

The most important thing I learned there is: LISTEN TO YOUR GD SCIENTISTS, FOOLS!

The scientists were 20 years ahead of the bureaucrats and politicians then, and are probably 40-80 years ahead now, which means that their predictions for 2100 are pretty damn sound.

Mister Peejay: Rat: Wow...wrong thread? Somebody tell me this was the wrong thread before I forget what forum I'm in.

I think this is the thread where people talk about how they love to eat giant flavorless insects once they slather them with butter.

They're only flavorless 50 miles outside of New England, or frozen.

I'm afraid that many of the scientists are "optimists". They go native in bureaucracy and government and start pleasing their superiors and flattering corporate interests rather than telling it like it is.

This is human nature. If nothing else, it is prone to denial and wishful thinking. Some of them may think they are honestly serving public interest, but they are as delusional as any other incompetents. They have the greatest confidence in themselves when they are actually the people who the least competence and knowledge.

But we are Farkers. We have seen ALL the studies that show sociopaths and ignoramuses rise to the top like turds in a cess pool.

brantgoose: I had some lobster when I visited my family a couple of weeks ago. It was definitely hard shell. It came from the North Shore of New Brunswick, where the water is colder than Maine. No doubt the warm water slash warm winter theory is correct. Just another tiny brick in the wall of climate change.

I read that the cygnets (baby swans) hatched early this year--by early they mean, earlier than any time since the 1300s. Monks have cultivated the wild swans for centuries (in much of the UK, swans are a royal perogative and thus people can't hunt or farm them without royal permission). Last winter was definitely an extraordinary one. That makes 326 months of unusual weather in a row. I wonder if the answer could be -- global warming? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

I like lobster but it's a royal pest to eat. Mothergoose says that you could starve to death eating it.

In the Maritime Provinces, lobster-fishing is seasonal because of the colder water, but they tend to take smaller lobster, while in Maine, they fish year-round but manage the stocks more closely, with higher limits on the smallest lobster you can keep. This leads to a bit of cross-border irritation, but lobster fishermen are extremely jealous of their territority and their traps (they'll cut you up if you touch their traps) any way, so lobstermen aren't exactly gregarious. Fish are, to some extent, a situational good--although the roaming species are just the opposite--impossible to corral and control, even at the national or regional level.

All I care about is that the management of the stocks is scientific enough to prevent crashes.

The problem is that each generation of scientists, like each generation of government bureaucrats, corporations and fishermen, base their expectations on the immediate past. This can mask long term declines so that "normal" is always a few years or decades ago. This is a tragic situation for stocks and for the fishing industry. "Management" becomes an illusion of control when in reality the fish stocks are in rapid decline.

We've already lost 95% of the big fish--the human tendancy to take the biggest, best breeders is actually causing seafood to evolve rapidly towards smaller sized fish and shellfish, that breed earlier and produce less spawn.

I hope we can wise up before we go belly-up. There's plenty of blame to go around to everybody involved. No need to point fingers at one interest group or nation here.

My guess is that there will be a fish war between Canada and the USA when the warming waters push the lobster and other valuable fish stocks a bit further North. Already, the blue crab is being fished much further North than it was (it's a famous product of Chesapeake Bay, which is an ecological tragedy in some respects, although a success story in others). The same thing is happending in European waters, where the blue crab is now being fished commercially as far North as Scotland.

The decline of fish stocks has not only forced fishermen to turn to crustaceans, it has increased the stocks of crustaceans because their young are not being eaten by as many fish, but there's a risk that we'll crash the crab and lobster fisheries, and then move on to whatever is left, working our way down from the most desirable species to the barely edible. We are already using massive amounts of small fish ("sardines" and worse) to feed our farmed salmon, tulapia, etc.

Anybody care for a slice of jelly fish?

In addition to Environment Canada, I worked at Fisheries and Oceans many years ago.

The most important thing I learned there is: LISTEN TO YOUR GD SCIENTISTS, FOOLS!

The scientists were 20 years ahead of the bureaucrats and politicians then, and are probably 40-80 years ahead now, which means that their predictions for 2100 are pretty damn sound.

The sardine stocks plumetted years ago. I remember reading about it in the news.

But great post. When fish stocks go down, that's some scary stuff.

brantgoose: I'm afraid that many of the scientists are "optimists". They go native in bureaucracy and government and start pleasing their superiors and flattering corporate interests rather than telling it like it is.

This is human nature. If nothing else, it is prone to denial and wishful thinking. Some of them may think they are honestly serving public interest, but they are as delusional as any other incompetents. They have the greatest confidence in themselves when they are actually the people who the least competence and knowledge.

But we are Farkers. We have seen ALL the studies that show sociopaths and ignoramuses rise to the top like turds in a cess pool.

And don't forget overfishing is combined with changing currents and ocean temperatures that effect fish populations as well.

I don't understand eating blue crabs, you have to beat them with a hammer and wear a bib.

I like food that doesn't leave you smelling bad after you eat it.

ginandbacon: They do have the best tasting meat. Still kinda scary.

.
.
I tried real Louisiana crawfish once, ever since that day I view lobster as some sort of strange rubber.

david_gaithersburg: ginandbacon: They do have the best tasting meat. Still kinda scary.

.
.
I tried real Louisiana crawfish once, ever since that day I view lobster as some sort of strange rubber.

Only if it's overcooked, which is easy to do if you don't know what you are doing.

I hate living in a state where our only fresh seafood is whitefish.

Good Lord!

AverageAmericanGuy: Red Lobster has fresh lobster year round.

Never, NEVER buy lobster more than 100 miles from where it's caught.

/can throw a rock at the lobster-infested water from my front door, eh?

brantgoose: I had some lobster when I visited my family a couple of weeks ago. It was definitely hard shell. It came from the North Shore of New Brunswick, where the water is colder than Maine. No doubt the warm water slash warm winter theory is correct. Just another tiny brick in the wall of climate change.

I read that the cygnets (baby swans) hatched early this year--by early they mean, earlier than any time since the 1300s. Monks have cultivated the wild swans for centuries (in much of the UK, swans are a royal perogative and thus people can't hunt or farm them without royal permission). Last winter was definitely an extraordinary one. That makes 326 months of unusual weather in a row. I wonder if the answer could be -- global warming? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

I like lobster but it's a royal pest to eat. Mothergoose says that you could starve to death eating it.

In the Maritime Provinces, lobster-fishing is seasonal because of the colder water, but they tend to take smaller lobster, while in Maine, they fish year-round but manage the stocks more closely, with higher limits on the smallest lobster you can keep. This leads to a bit of cross-border irritation, but lobster fishermen are extremely jealous of their territority and their traps (they'll cut you up if you touch their traps) any way, so lobstermen aren't exactly gregarious. Fish are, to some extent, a situational good--although the roaming species are just the opposite--impossible to corral and control, even at the national or regional level.

All I care about is that the management of the stocks is scientific enough to prevent crashes.

The problem is that each generation of scientists, like each generation of government bureaucrats, corporations and fishermen, base their expectations on the immediate past. This can mask long term declines so that "normal" is always a few years or decades ago. This is a tragic situation for stocks and for the fishing industry. "Management" becomes an illusion of control when in reality ...

If you ever learn the difference between farther and further, I'm adding you to my favorites list.

Coming from a family of commercial fishermen lobster was always abundant in the house. I prefer shrimp though. Lobster tail meat is tougher than the claws. I'd rather eat lobster with cocktail sauce than butter unless you're making baked-stuffed tails, those are awesome. If you knew what lobster traps are baited with you'd never eat them again. Picture a bin of rotten racks (bones) of dead fish sitting on the deck of a boat for days growing maggots. The stinkier the better bait.
/Smug story bro, I get lobster for free knowing a few lobstermen

I blame SpongeBob Squarepants.

Mister Peejay: Rat: Wow...wrong thread? Somebody tell me this was the wrong thread before I forget what forum I'm in.

I think this is the thread where people talk about how they love to eat giant flavorless insects once they slather them with butter.

Here's another satisfied Red Lobster customer.

Just big bottom dwelling aquatic bugs.

Where's the BEEF?

If everyone's gonna be slagging lobster at least take the time to look up the correct terminology. They're arthropods, not insects or bugs.

\arthropods
\\arrrrrrrthropods

brantgoose: I wonder if the answer could be -- global warming? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!



Nope.

SevenizGud: brantgoose: I wonder if the answer could be -- global warming? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Nope.

I don't know why you keep attempting to post this chart, when anyone can easily modify the URL to expand the data set, still using the same source.


The strange part is that I've never seen you post anything but that chart, and I've never seen you in any thread except a global warming thread.

/transparent shill is transparent

This has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change, man, move along...

Theaetetus: I don't know why you keep attempting to post this chart, when anyone can easily modify the URL to expand the data set, still using the same source.

...and STILL see no warming over the last 15 years.

I guess you are arguing that those lobsters are saying, hey, let's come early, after all, it is still warmer than it was in 1940. Durrrrrp.

Why haven't the lobsters come early EVERY year since it just keeps getting warmer and warmer? Hurf durf.

Oh wait...it has nothing to do with global warming, that's why.

blockhouse: I'm heading to my favorite seafood restaurant in Bar Harbor in 26 minutes for some delicious tasty lobster, so this thread is relevant to my interests.

LOL, j/k, going to Seal Harbor instead. Bar Harbor is for tourists.

/Oh God, I'm a lobster hipster!
//Lobhipster?

lohbpster

FTFA:
Bayer thinks that the water temperature may play a role - Maine had a warm winter. Another factor, he says, is the availability of food, which is often enhanced by the warmer oceans.

Damn, dude, didn't you get the memo? Nothing good EVER comes from warming. It is all bad, everywhere, all the time, no matter how you measure it. Completely, 100% bad.

Maybe you need a refresher course.

SevenizGud: brantgoose: I wonder if the answer could be -- global warming? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Nope.

You, sir, are a liar.

SevenizGud: Theaetetus: I don't know why you keep attempting to post this chart, when anyone can easily modify the URL to expand the data set, still using the same source.

...and STILL see no warming over the last 15 years.

.
Funny, how that only works when you include that huge spike upward in 1998. Liar.

Maine lobster is okay, but this is the finest meal in the world:

"Delicious Anthropogenic Lobster...yeah."

;)

So which one of the above gives the best picture of what the global temperature appears to be doing, and which one is being posted by someone lying with numbers by cherry picking to show a downward trend?

whyRpeoplesostupid: Thisbymaster: Maybe because we had a full warm summer week in February that kick started spring up here? Anyone else remember the >9000 pollen count? I know my nose still does.

This. Everything is early this year in the northeast

No, it must be global warming/cooling/middling/the hole in the ozone layer.

In before that asshole with the green text.