Thread: 140-year-old lobster's tale has a happy ending

"Vikeman" wrote:

He also took the time to elaborate that as a biology major, he was certain the lobstah would survive until the claws regenerated.
Not released into the wild, they can't.
That was the crux of my point! They CAN shed their claws, but they don't grow back overnight.

That is why they introduce "Culls" (lobstahs with one or no claws) into market.
I was just calling HIM on that!
I guess people can't maintain their own debates.
Or is the discriminatory practice of only certain people calling certain people out on things allowed???
BTW, I don't give a crap what you think because I wasn't talking to you.

Did someone piss in your cereal this morning, or are you just generally a prick?
When you post in a public forum, you are speaking to everyone.
If you want to have a private chat with someone, that is what PMs are for.

You can call out whoever you want, but just because other people disagree with you it doesn't make them " nit-picking dimply buttocks who have way too much time on their hands."

Looking at it from a biological perspective, the fact that Lobsters can drop one or both claws leads me to believe that doing so in the wild would not be the instant death sentence that you purport it to be.
If it was, then the ability to do so would have been eradicated eons ago through evolution and natural selection.
In a lobster tank, where there are close quarters and the inability to flee , yes, it would be a death sentence.
In the ocean, which is just a bit bigger than a lobster tank, it would not necessarily be.

"Vikeman" wrote:

He also took the time to elaborate that as a biology major, he was certain the lobstah would survive until the claws regenerated.
Not released into the wild, they can't.
That was the crux of my point! They CAN shed their claws, but they don't grow back overnight.

That is why they introduce "Culls" (lobstahs with one or no claws) into market.
I was just calling HIM on that!
I guess people can't maintain their own debates.
Or is the discriminatory practice of only certain people calling certain people out on things allowed???
BTW, I don't give a crap what you think because I wasn't talking to you.

Wow... you're a d*ck.

Congrats on your lobster knowledge.

"Vikeman" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

[quote author=BadlandsViking link=topic=50140.msg895225#msg895225 date=1231626556]
20-pounder dubbed 'George' released into wild after restaurant spares him



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28589278/?GT1=43001

My wife works for a large seafood dist.
I had worked there in the past for 5 yrs.
A while back a well-known restaurant in Boston decided to do the same thing, and even had it documented for brownie points.

Well, the stupid @sses forgot to take the floopin' bands off before releasing it into Boston hahbah.
That poor freakn' lobstah wouldn't have lasted long without being able to feed his own face.

BTW, they only put the bands on their claws to keep them from eating each other in the tanks...seriously.

As a Biology Major I can tell you that they don't eat with the large claws, they eat with the smaller 2nd row pinchers. The big ones are used as much for defense as anything as they are really scavengers more than predators. Not that any of this matters in the big scheme of things but that lobster can certainly get by until it molts and regenerates a new set of claws as it sheds the old ones along with the rubber bands.

Okay, from most of your posts and the fact that you are a Vikes fan I kind of like your jiggly butt.
BUT, as a Biology Major, well that's a different story.
You are right when you say lobstahs are scavengers.
And yes, they would be able to feed their face with their little pinchers with whatever minute scraps they could conjure up off of the ocean floor.

HOWEVER, with both claws banded, they would NEVER survive nearly long enough for their sharp ripping claw or the larger crushing claw to re-generate.
They DEPEND on these claws for survival.
They would be eaten in no time, even by their own family members.


This comes from lobstah experts who have been working in the New England Lobstah industry their entire lives.

I spent 6 months working in one of the largest lobstah pools in Massachusetts.
I have many a time opened a lobstah crate to find one has had the bands slip off of even one claw, and have found at least one if not more lobstah "pieces parts" and even half-eaten ones.

It is beginning to become apparent that a few on this site are nit-picking dimply buttocks who have way too much time on their hands.

Well that was an uncalled for response.

I personally don't give a crap about weather or not the lobster could survive in the wild with its claws banded.
But for the record, you changed your assertion as to why it wouldn't make it after UffDa called you on it.

Vikeman: That poor freakn' lobstah wouldn't have lasted long without being able to feed his own face.
UffDa: ...they don't eat with the large claws, they eat with the smaller 2nd row pinchers
Vikeman: ...with both claws banded, they would NEVER survive nearly long enough...
They DEPEND on these claws for survival.

You are probably right, it wouldn't survive.
But is it really getting worked up over?
BTW, I thought lobsters could shed their claws, and this was one of the issues fishermen had to contend with when banding them because ti reduced the market value.
Can anyone verify?

He also took the time to elaborate that as a biology major, he was certain the lobstah would survive until the claws regenerated.
Not released into the wild, they can't.
That was the crux of my point! They CAN shed their claws, but they don't grow back overnight.

That is why they introduce "Culls" (lobstahs with one or no claws) into market.
I was just calling HIM on that!
I guess people can't maintain their own debates.
Or is the discriminatory practice of only certain people calling certain people out on things allowed???
BTW, I don't give a crap what you think because I wasn't talking to you.
[/quote]

[img width=450 height=161]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2301/2476225163_c9235134d1.jpg?v=0[/img]

"Vikeman" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

[quote author=BadlandsViking link=topic=50140.msg895225#msg895225 date=1231626556]
20-pounder dubbed 'George' released into wild after restaurant spares him



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28589278/?GT1=43001

My wife works for a large seafood dist.
I had worked there in the past for 5 yrs.
A while back a well-known restaurant in Boston decided to do the same thing, and even had it documented for brownie points.

Well, the stupid @sses forgot to take the floopin' bands off before releasing it into Boston hahbah.
That poor freakn' lobstah wouldn't have lasted long without being able to feed his own face.

BTW, they only put the bands on their claws to keep them from eating each other in the tanks...seriously.

As a Biology Major I can tell you that they don't eat with the large claws, they eat with the smaller 2nd row pinchers. The big ones are used as much for defense as anything as they are really scavengers more than predators. Not that any of this matters in the big scheme of things but that lobster can certainly get by until it molts and regenerates a new set of claws as it sheds the old ones along with the rubber bands.

Okay, from most of your posts and the fact that you are a Vikes fan I kind of like your jiggly butt.
BUT, as a Biology Major, well that's a different story.
You are right when you say lobstahs are scavengers.
And yes, they would be able to feed their face with their little pinchers with whatever minute scraps they could conjure up off of the ocean floor.

HOWEVER, with both claws banded, they would NEVER survive nearly long enough for their sharp ripping claw or the larger crushing claw to re-generate.
They DEPEND on these claws for survival.
They would be eaten in no time, even by their own family members.


This comes from lobstah experts who have been working in the New England Lobstah industry their entire lives.

I spent 6 months working in one of the largest lobstah pools in Massachusetts.
I have many a time opened a lobstah crate to find one has had the bands slip off of even one claw, and have found at least one if not more lobstah "pieces parts" and even half-eaten ones.

It is beginning to become apparent that a few on this site are nit-picking dimply buttocks who have way too much time on their hands.

Well that was an uncalled for response.

I personally don't give a crap about weather or not the lobster could survive in the wild with its claws banded.
But for the record, you changed your assertion as to why it wouldn't make it after UffDa called you on it.

Vikeman: That poor freakn' lobstah wouldn't have lasted long without being able to feed his own face.
UffDa: ...they don't eat with the large claws, they eat with the smaller 2nd row pinchers
Vikeman: ...with both claws banded, they would NEVER survive nearly long enough...
They DEPEND on these claws for survival.

You are probably right, it wouldn't survive.
But is it really getting worked up over?
BTW, I thought lobsters could shed their claws, and this was one of the issues fishermen had to contend with when banding them because ti reduced the market value.
Can anyone verify?

He also took the time to elaborate that as a biology major, he was certain the lobstah would survive until the claws regenerated.
Not released into the wild, they can't.
That was the crux of my point! They CAN shed their claws, but they don't grow back overnight.

That is why they introduce "Culls" (lobstahs with one or no claws) into market.
I was just calling HIM on that!
I guess people can't maintain their own debates.
Or is the discriminatory practice of only certain people calling certain people out on things allowed???
BTW, I don't give a crap what you think because I wasn't talking to you.
[/quote]
[youtube=425,350]uuZALYJNC-A[/youtube]

"Vikeman" wrote:

"CTVikingfan" wrote:

I dont know what they eat with or rip or crush with but anything over3 lbs to me tastes horrible.

Yep, the bigger the lobstah, the tougher the meat.


I'm sure someone will want to debate that FACT, as well.
Bring it on!

Thats total bull Shit........And I'll take my experiences and knowledge from working on the seas, catching and cooking up 10 to 20 lb lobsters, over some book smarts person any day....
It's a myth and wrong belief that large lobsters are tougher and don't taste good.
It's all in the cooking and prep.
Give me a pound of butter and a pot of boiling water and that 20 lb lobster would have been coming out of my Ass the next day......

"NordicNed" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

"CTVikingfan" wrote:

I dont know what they eat with or rip or crush with but anything over3 lbs to me tastes horrible.

Yep, the bigger the lobstah, the tougher the meat.


I'm sure someone will want to debate that FACT, as well.
Bring it on!

Thats total bull Shit........And I'll take my experiences and knowledge from working on the seas, catching and cooking up 10 to 20 lb lobsters, over some book smarts person any day....

It's a myth and wrong belief that large lobsters are tougher and don't taste good.

It's all in the cooking and prep.

Give me a pound of butter and a pot of boiling water and that 20 lb lobster would have been coming out of my Ass the next day......

Whole?

LOL, yea whole Mr.A......LMAO




Truth is,
10 to 20 lb lobsters are not all that uncommon, espeicaly if your working on a deep water dragger.....Largest Lobster I personaly ever took home,
24 lbs 8 oz,
and boy oh boy, was he delicious.... ;D

I never thought this would turn into a sh*t-talking thread...

How long has Vikeman been waiting to bust out his lobster knowledge?

"Vikeman" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

[quote author=BadlandsViking link=topic=50140.msg895225#msg895225 date=1231626556]
20-pounder dubbed 'George' released into wild after restaurant spares him



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28589278/?GT1=43001

My wife works for a large seafood dist.
I had worked there in the past for 5 yrs.
A while back a well-known restaurant in Boston decided to do the same thing, and even had it documented for brownie points.

Well, the stupid @sses forgot to take the floopin' bands off before releasing it into Boston hahbah.
That poor freakn' lobstah wouldn't have lasted long without being able to feed his own face.

BTW, they only put the bands on their claws to keep them from eating each other in the tanks...seriously.

As a Biology Major I can tell you that they don't eat with the large claws, they eat with the smaller 2nd row pinchers. The big ones are used as much for defense as anything as they are really scavengers more than predators. Not that any of this matters in the big scheme of things but that lobster can certainly get by until it molts and regenerates a new set of claws as it sheds the old ones along with the rubber bands.

Okay, from most of your posts and the fact that you are a Vikes fan I kind of like your jiggly butt.
BUT, as a Biology Major, well that's a different story.
You are right when you say lobstahs are scavengers.
And yes, they would be able to feed their face with their little pinchers with whatever minute scraps they could conjure up off of the ocean floor.

HOWEVER, with both claws banded, they would NEVER survive nearly long enough for their sharp ripping claw or the larger crushing claw to re-generate.
They DEPEND on these claws for survival.
They would be eaten in no time, even by their own family members.


This comes from lobstah experts who have been working in the New England Lobstah industry their entire lives.

I spent 6 months working in one of the largest lobstah pools in Massachusetts.
I have many a time opened a lobstah crate to find one has had the bands slip off of even one claw, and have found at least one if not more lobstah "pieces parts" and even half-eaten ones.

It is beginning to become apparent that a few on this site are nit-picking dimply buttocks who have way too much time on their hands.

Well that was an uncalled for response.

I personally don't give a crap about weather or not the lobster could survive in the wild with its claws banded.
But for the record, you changed your assertion as to why it wouldn't make it after UffDa called you on it.

Vikeman: That poor freakn' lobstah wouldn't have lasted long without being able to feed his own face.
UffDa: ...they don't eat with the large claws, they eat with the smaller 2nd row pinchers
Vikeman: ...with both claws banded, they would NEVER survive nearly long enough...
They DEPEND on these claws for survival.

You are probably right, it wouldn't survive.
But is it really getting worked up over?
BTW, I thought lobsters could shed their claws, and this was one of the issues fishermen had to contend with when banding them because ti reduced the market value.
Can anyone verify?

He also took the time to elaborate that as a biology major, he was certain the lobstah would survive until the claws regenerated.
Not released into the wild, they can't.
That was the crux of my point! They CAN shed their claws, but they don't grow back overnight.
That is why they introduce "Culls" (lobstahs with one or no claws) into market.
I was just calling HIM on that!
I guess people can't maintain their own debates.
Or is the discriminatory practice of only certain people calling certain people out on things allowed???
BTW, I don't give a crap what you think because I wasn't talking to you.
[/quote]

I really don't want to drag this out, but for Christs sake, they molt in the wild and live. They lose claws and they live.

How is this done? Well, they find a spot to hide until the part they lose regenerates or until the new exoskeleton hardens after molting.

Maybe i am wrong but I thought the lobster was released into the ocean, not into a lobster pool or a crate packed with other lobsters and no place to hide. If that was the case i apologize. If not I stand by what I said.

"V4L" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"Vikeman" wrote:

"UffDaVikes" wrote:

[quote author=Vikeman link=topic=50140.msg895368#msg895368 date=1231652751]
[quote author=BadlandsViking link=topic=50140.msg895225#msg895225 date=1231626556]
20-pounder dubbed 'George' released into wild after restaurant spares him



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28589278/?GT1=43001

My wife works for a large seafood dist.
I had worked there in the past for 5 yrs.
A while back a well-known restaurant in Boston decided to do the same thing, and even had it documented for brownie points.

Well, the stupid @sses forgot to take the floopin' bands off before releasing it into Boston hahbah.
That poor freakn' lobstah wouldn't have lasted long without being able to feed his own face.

BTW, they only put the bands on their claws to keep them from eating each other in the tanks...seriously.

As a Biology Major I can tell you that they don't eat with the large claws, they eat with the smaller 2nd row pinchers. The big ones are used as much for defense as anything as they are really scavengers more than predators. Not that any of this matters in the big scheme of things but that lobster can certainly get by until it molts and regenerates a new set of claws as it sheds the old ones along with the rubber bands.

Okay, from most of your posts and the fact that you are a Vikes fan I kind of like your jiggly butt.
BUT, as a Biology Major, well that's a different story.
You are right when you say lobstahs are scavengers.
And yes, they would be able to feed their face with their little pinchers with whatever minute scraps they could conjure up off of the ocean floor.

HOWEVER, with both claws banded, they would NEVER survive nearly long enough for their sharp ripping claw or the larger crushing claw to re-generate.
They DEPEND on these claws for survival.
They would be eaten in no time, even by their own family members.


This comes from lobstah experts who have been working in the New England Lobstah industry their entire lives.

I spent 6 months working in one of the largest lobstah pools in Massachusetts.
I have many a time opened a lobstah crate to find one has had the bands slip off of even one claw, and have found at least one if not more lobstah "pieces parts" and even half-eaten ones.

It is beginning to become apparent that a few on this site are nit-picking dimply buttocks who have way too much time on their hands.

Well that was an uncalled for response.

I personally don't give a crap about weather or not the lobster could survive in the wild with its claws banded.
But for the record, you changed your assertion as to why it wouldn't make it after UffDa called you on it.

Vikeman: That poor freakn' lobstah wouldn't have lasted long without being able to feed his own face.
UffDa: ...they don't eat with the large claws, they eat with the smaller 2nd row pinchers
Vikeman: ...with both claws banded, they would NEVER survive nearly long enough...
They DEPEND on these claws for survival.

You are probably right, it wouldn't survive.
But is it really getting worked up over?
BTW, I thought lobsters could shed their claws, and this was one of the issues fishermen had to contend with when banding them because ti reduced the market value.
Can anyone verify?

He also took the time to elaborate that as a biology major, he was certain the lobstah would survive until the claws regenerated.
Not released into the wild, they can't.
That was the crux of my point! They CAN shed their claws, but they don't grow back overnight.

That is why they introduce "Culls" (lobstahs with one or no claws) into market.
I was just calling HIM on that!
I guess people can't maintain their own debates.
Or is the discriminatory practice of only certain people calling certain people out on things allowed???
BTW, I don't give a crap what you think because I wasn't talking to you.
[/quote]


No we are cool with bebates but when you start acting like a j~~~~~~s someone will speak up

Good for you man you know alot about lobsters.. We are very proud of you.. No need to be a prick about it
[/quote]

Not intending to be a prick.
It just seems there are thre or four posters on here who like to prick apart peoples posts...dissect every freakn' word.

I see no need to do that to folks.
Just from being a member here for a short time I can tell a lot of folks out there are on the pssssive side.
I respect it, but I see no need to censor the word @ss.
Is a name for an animal.
Kids use much worse than that.

Where I come from we are brash about getting points across and we let each other debate on our own...we MYOB!