Talk:Florida stone crab

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Without killing?
Comment moved from Talk:Florida stone crab/Comments. Astronaut (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, what is the other animal whose meat can be obtained without killing it? Its mention made me want to know and I can't find this information anywhere. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is curious about this. It's a bit maddening. Perhaps it can be mentioned in passing? Thanks.

--K. Fowler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.216.171 (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2009


 * I don't know, but it would be good to have it mentioned here in the article.
 * To actually get an answer, you might have a better chance asking at the reference desk. Astronaut (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the comment, as I could not find any source regarding another animal that this is true for. If someone knows, or can find a source, please put the fact back in the article.
 * "Stone Crab is one of only two sources of meat in the world that does not kill the animal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.145.132 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a really old comment, but the original comment likely was referring to octopus. You can cut off an octopus tentacle and it will regrow as if it was never cut off (as opposed to the lizards whose tails regrow but are not to the same quality as the original). Here’s an article about the regrowth https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/octopus-chronicles/how-octopus-arms-regenerate-with-ease/ EliotWL (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mortality rates
(nitpicking:) The article says... "mortality rates are 47% for doubly-amputated crabs and 28% for single amputees. Consequently fishers are encouraged to harvest only one claw to increase the crab's chances of survival".

If 100 single amputation are performed, then, on average, 72 survive. Of the survivors, 72 x 0.28 = 20 die from a second single amputation (assuming mortality is independent of the number of amputations, which is the best we can do with the data given). That leaves 52 survivors from the original 100 crabs. So the mortality rate of a crab surviving two single amputations is 48%, about the same as double amputees. If we are confined to just the information given here, it would seem better to harvest with double amputations. This would result in better hauls for less effort, and reduce the population of single amputees releasing ecological resources for uninjured crabs. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those figures were obtained from very small sample sizes, and in the laboratory. The authors themselves state that "In the wild, where declawed crabs must compete for food, mates, and shelter, and avoid predators, the mortality rate must be even higher". I think the following sentence in our article is where the real problems lie ("Consequently fishers are encouraged to harvest only one claw to increase the crab's chances of survival.") I see two options: either we delete the sentence entirely, or we remove "consequently", because, as you point out, that advice does not follow from experiments which measure mortality only as a direct result of the amputation procedure. The reference for the following sentence states that "Although it is currently lawful to harvest both of a stone crab's claws this practice leaves the stone crab with few alternatives to defend itself from predators", which sounds like a much more compelling argument. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of a convincing rational for harvesting single amputees? It's just a simple practical issue, whether one or two claws are harvested. To keep it simple, I've delete the problematic "Consequently fishers are encouraged to harvest only one claw to increase the crab's chances of survival." If you feel the statement should be restored and doesn't need further support, I won't contest it. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole article needs quite a lot of work, so any improvements you see fit to make are fine by me! --Stemonitis (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if crabs with both claws removed are at double-jeopardy, as it were, it is still not clear that removing one claw is a better approach. It seems the claws are not primarily used for defence, they are used more for crushing molluscs and cutting flesh. Their main predator, the octopus, is not deterred by their claws, and the main defence of the stone crab is to burrow. I presume that if one claw is removed, then it will be the larger claw used for crushing molluscs. This means that both single and double amputees loose their crushing claw, and have to rely on scavenging until the claw grows back. The additional handicap the double amputee has is losing its smaller claw which can pinch and cut. If both claws are removed, you would be harvesting fewer crabs to get the same claw weight. Unless some hard facts are available, there is no basis for believing that a given number of double amputees represent a worse situation than a larger number of single amputees.


 * This paragraph is widely quoted around the web; Studies by the state of Florida have shown that removing both claws do not harm the Florida stone crab in any way when removed properly. In fact numerous studies have shown that by removing both claws, Florida stone crabs are forced to eat sea grass which has been proven to be more healthy for their diet and regenerate their claws faster and female Florida stone crab have more baby stone crabs since they are unable to fend off the advancements of the male crabs.


 * This seems fanciful and unprofessionally worded. If the advantages of declawing were that great, stone crabs would evolve without claws. I can't find a reliable source. This blog gives this link to the FFWCC web site, but it is dead. Either someone just made the paragraph up, or the FFWCC had second thoughts and withdrew the report. So, there it is. I knew nothing about this at the start, and I still know nothing! --Epipelagic (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Check this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20101220015441/http://myfwc.com/RULESANDREGS/Saltwater_Regulations_recstonecrab.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.147.249 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florida stone crab. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130130165101/http://www.montereybayaquarium.org//cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=92 to http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_factsheet.aspx?fid=92

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)