Posted on 04/12/2005 1:16:00 PM PDT by Red Badger
SCIENTISTS who bred Australia's first hatchery-reared southern rock lobsters have achieved the biological equivalent of "putting man on the moon" Fisheries Minister Senator Ian Macdonald said today. Scientists at the University of Tasmania made the breakthrough, which shortened the normal two year development of an adult lobster to one year. Mr Macdonald said the research could put Australia ahead of the pack in the future commercialisation of lobster farming. "This is a major achievement in the move towards sustainable farming of lobsters and will provide significant opportunities for the future," Mr Macdonald said. Attempts to develop commercial aquaculture of the southern rock lobster began at the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (TAFI) in 1997, Mr Macdonald said. The research was jointly funded by the federal and Tasmanian government.
THAT'S a lobster!!!!
A lobster without claws is like a cone without ice cream.
Rock lobster indeed.
We New Englanders might have the worst politicians, but we do have the best lobsters anywhere.
You should eat it wild. Farmed-raised salmon is bad for you.
LOL!
BRIDGEKEEPER:
Hee hee heh. Stop! What... is your name?
ARTHUR:
It is 'Arthur', King of the Britons.
BRIDGEKEEPER:
What... is your quest?
ARTHUR:
To seek the Holy Grail.
BRIDGEKEEPER:
What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
ARTHUR:
What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
BRIDGEKEEPER:
Huh? I-- I don't know that. Auuuuuuuugh!
BEDEVERE:
How do know so much about swallows?
ARTHUR:
Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
***Great idea, lobster farming. Just think of all the tiny tractors we can sell them.***
I am, as we speak, designing tiny, little Deere Tractor peaked caps for the lobster farmers. I expect to make a fortune.
(ok, so i'm slow, sorry)
I've eaten W I L D salmon, too! Love it just as much! LOX !mmmmm..........
No, they didn't. But somebody seems to have been awfully successful at convincing Americans that they did! This issue constantly comes up on FR - almost everytime there is a thread concerning Australia in any way.
Guns are not banned in Australia - not even close. A law abiding citizen can own just about any type of firearm if they are willing to do the necessary paperwork to get the licence they need. This really isn't that difficult - just a bit time consuming for higher level licences. It's actually very easy for a basic licence - pretty much just a criminal record check to make sure you haven't been convicted of a crime in the last ten years (and have never been convicted of certain violent crimes).
Our gun laws aren't particularly good ones - but they're really not that bad. If you want to own guns, then as long as there's no reason you shouldn't (like criminal convictions) you can.
Thank you again for clearing that up and FReegards....
Here's a thread that may be the root of the gun banning misinformation:
Crossbows, samurai swords to be banned (in Australia)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966297/posts
But, a key point - can you practically use them for self-defense in your home? Without a ruinous prosecution afterwards?
Under Australian law, a person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves or another person. This can include a lethal level of force, but whether a person is justified in using that level of force depends on the circumstances surrounding a particular case. There's no simple answer.
Generally speaking a person would be justified in using a firearm to defend themselves in their own home and it's unlikely they would be charged with any offence under normal circumstances - but it does depend on the precise circumstances.
Prosecutions have occurred - generally in cases where a person could have simply left the house and called the police.
You cannot use deadly force to protect property - there has to be a danger to life or limb.
So there is sometimes a duty to retreat, even in your own home. That tends to be an issue in Liberal states here, but not in conservative ones.
Yes, that's pretty much correct.
If you can avoid the need to use lethal force by escaping, you are generally expected to do so. There are a few exceptions, especially if you live in an isolated area, but few people would know the law well enough to make use of those.
Great. Now I've got Fred Schneider's toneless singing stuck in my head.
Ummmm.......one would hope so. Now, do you also happen to have a discerning palate??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.