Replies

Odd that sensitive ocean species like lobster and sea scallops are still about $10.00/lb (here in Indiana... think shipping costs). If the ecosystem was failing, they would be among the first to decline. If they declined, their prices would increase (darn those greedy capitalist pigs!). Last month the grocer had a new tank full of lobsters for $7.50/lb. (We ate well that night.)

Let's use the shrill liberals' line on Iraq: where's the evidence?
Christopher Columbus' logs from 1492 probably won't convince many that there are problems 511 years later.

Odd that sensitive ocean species like lobster and sea scallops are still about $10.00/lb (here in Indiana... think shipping costs). If the ecosystem was failing, they would be among the first to decline. If they declined, their prices would increase (darn those greedy capitalist pigs!).

One fallacy in your thinking is the assumption that only one variable is changing. You touched on another variable in play, shipping costs, which have declined as transportation, storage and inventory management have become more efficient. The capture techniques have also become more efficient, so more ground can be covered, with a greater than 1 to 1 ratio in $ returned for $ expended. These two items will mask the rising cost due to scarcity, regardless of species.

The other fallacy is to use lobsters as your comparison species. Lobstering is well regulated, since most of it occurs in the territorial waters of various countries, which have a vested interest in keeping the breeding stock viable. The article above refers to fishing in the open ocean, which is regulated via treaty with a multitude of competing nations, all of which have reasons to push for maximum usage of the common resources. Many nations also turn a blind eye to ships that violate the fishing treaties. This, as a previous poster mentioned, is the tragedy of the commons.

Unlike timber harvesting, which involves companies often planting more trees than they take, this is a real problem with ramifications to the ecosystems involved. The evidence is available to anyone interested, and is more concrete than that offered by the global warming crowd.

LTS

"Odd that sensitive ocean species like lobster and sea scallops are still about $10.00/lb (here in Indiana... think shipping costs). If the ecosystem was failing, they would be among the first to decline. If they declined, their prices would increase (darn those greedy capitalist pigs!). Last month the grocer had a new tank full of lobsters for $7.50/lb. (We ate well that night.)"

According to the book "Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World," by Mark Kurlansky, the disappearance of cod (due to overfishing) in the Newfoundland Banks lead to an explosion in lobster, shellfish, and other species that the cod fed upon.

Since the ground-trawling techniques used for cod do not work with lobster and scallops, they are relatively unaffected. OTOH, Cod used to sell for around $1.00/pound while you are buying lobster for $7.50/pound. Sounds like the consumer is paying more due to overfishing.

Odd that sensitive ocean species like lobster and sea scallops are still about $10.00/lb (here in Indiana... think shipping costs). If the ecosystem was failing, they would be among the first to decline. If they declined, their prices would increase (darn those greedy capitalist pigs!).

See if you can find out where the scallops are from. In a trade of anecdotes, many seafood restaurants have had to remove popular choices like swordfish and snapper from their "everyday" menus (as opposed to catch-of-the-day specials) due to lack of supply combined with high prices. Restaurants such as Red Lobster and the Chart House have been affected in this manner.