This is why I H A T E partisan politics...

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/200#post_3503165
A little research would do you wonders. Several business from ranchers to marinas have been in that area. Their lease permits came due then were reinstated. Since other businesses have been reinstated over the years what was to address. You ask for a new permit, pay the fee and taxes and continue on. They had applied for their permit extention. They were revoked, while others were granted. It is a crock of crap.
This was no small farm. This farm accounted for 40% of the harvested oysters to come out of California. How much revenue does the state lose because of a federal decision? How much will this impact the local economy? compare that with the "studied" environmental harm. Funny, these "studies" I can not find on the web. Even Fienstein who is a proenvironmental advocate states the science of the studies was wrong and false or falsified.
Go to the website of the oyster company and they actually brag about how pristine and beautiful the area is and how they work very hard to keep it that way....
Bionic, I have to ask you...is there any single action the feds of this administration could do and you wouldn't find a way to support it?
Again, if this is supposed protected lands, why were permits issued in the first place? Why not allow these businesses to purchase the property outright? Something sounds "fishy" to me. What is the ulterior motive to target just this oyster company, if you say some marina and cattle rancher's permits were extended and not affected? Is there something specific about this part of the region that's different from the other locales? Sounds like a little political gerrymandering to me.
Trust me Darth, I don't blindly support every action that comes out of the Federal, State, and Local Governments. It's somewhat hypocritical when people sit around and complain about "Washington does this", or "That Socialist Obama is doing that", when there's more government restrictions and laws being pushed down at the state and federal level that affect me more. You're harping about some oyster farm in California. OK. Doesn't affect me in the least. I get my oysters from the Gulf Coast right here in Texas. Oh wait. We have to go with the logic "Well if they can do it in California, why not in Texas, Colorado, or any other state?" You would be correct that could potentially happen. I just don't see the Feds doing these massive lands grabs for no specific reason. There has to be some sort of agenda for wanting to take actions like these. The oyster company has every right to due process, and be heard in Federal Court to address their grievances about losing their permit. This could very well end up in front of the SCOTUS.
How much revenue will the state lose? Dpends on whether this oyster company received any tax abatements for continuing their operations when the previous owner was planning to shut down in 2004. As deep in the hole California is, losing this revenue wouldn't even put a dent on their fiscal problems. Impact the local economy? There are approximately 30 people working at this oyster farm. Don't think the community will be impacted much because 30 people aren't shopping at the local grocery store, or patronizing the local restaurants because of their departure.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503184
Again, if this is supposed protected lands, why were permits issued in the first place? Why not allow these businesses to purchase the property outright? Something sounds "fishy" to me. What is the ulterior motive to target just this oyster company, if you say some marina and cattle rancher's permits were extended and not affected? Is there something specific about this part of the region that's different from the other locales? Sounds like a little political gerrymandering to me.
Trust me Darth, I don't blindly support every action that comes out of the Federal, State, and Local Governments. It's somewhat hypocritical when people sit around and complain about "Washington does this", or "That Socialist Obama is doing that", when there's more government restrictions and laws being pushed down at the state and federal level that affect me more. You're harping about some oyster farm in California. OK. Doesn't affect me in the least. I get my oysters from the Gulf Coast right here in Texas. Oh wait. We have to go with the logic "Well if they can do it in California, why not in Texas, Colorado, or any other state?" You would be correct that could potentially happen. I just don't see the Feds doing these massive lands grabs for no specific reason. There has to be some sort of agenda for wanting to take actions like these. The oyster company has every right to due process, and be heard in Federal Court to address their grievances about losing their permit. This could very well end up in front of the SCOTUS.
How much revenue will the state lose? Dpends on whether this oyster company received any tax abatements for continuing their operations when the previous owner was planning to shut down in 2004. As deep in the hole California is, losing this revenue wouldn't even put a dent on their fiscal problems. Impact the local economy? There are approximately 30 people working at this oyster farm. Don't think the community will be impacted much because 30 people aren't shopping at the local grocery store, or patronizing the local restaurants because of their departure.
The issue here is the lies to meet an ends. If the feds were shutting all the businesses in the area I could see that. I don't eat Oysters. I love beef. Yet they leave the cattle farms. That makes no sense if this is in anyway related to the environment. Runoff from the cattle operations mess up the water quality. This place supposedly accounts for 40 percent of California's oyster production. Gotta wonder if Salazar has an idiot nephew involved in another operation elsewhere in the state.

 

[darthtang aw]

How much revenue will the state lose? Dpends on whether this oyster company received any tax abatements for continuing their operations when the previous owner was planning to shut down in 2004.  As deep in the hole California is, losing this revenue wouldn't even put a dent on their fiscal problems.  Impact the local economy?  There are approximately 30 people working at this oyster farm.  Don't think the community will be impacted much because 30 people aren't shopping at the local grocery store, or patronizing the local restaurants because of their departure.
This is where you are wrong. You field of business is different so I don't expect you to understand the level a business like this helps support the community. I only have 6 employees. If I were to close my doors...the revenue loss in the community would be significant. Later when I get time I can explain to what extent.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503202
This is where you are wrong. You field of business is different so I don't expect you to understand the level a business like this helps support the community. I only have 6 employees. If I were to close my doors...the revenue loss in the community would be significant. Later when I get time I can explain to what extent.
It's based on percentages. If you have some business that employees 6 people in a community of maybe a few hundred, it may have some form of impact. If that same business was in a metropolis, no one would even realize it was gone. As reef alluded to, why is this oyster company being targeted, but the other businesses in that same area are being ignored? Don't get me wrong. I sysmpathize with these people, since they were supposedly just following the rules of re-applying and obtaining a new permit to continue their business. But it sounds to me "someone" is using this environmentall angle to get the business closed for whatever reason. To justify their reason to deny the permit, it would seem that some study would've been performed to show the economic and environmental benefits and detriments allowing this business to continue.

 

[darthtang aw]

It's based on percentages.  If you have some business that employees 6 people in a community of maybe a few hundred, it may have some form of impact.  If that same business was in a metropolis, no one would even realize it was gone.  As reef alluded to, why is this oyster company being targeted, but the other businesses in that same area are being ignored?  Don't get me wrong.  I sysmpathize with these people, since they were supposedly just following the rules of re-applying and obtaining a new permit to continue their business.  But it sounds to me "someone" is using this environmentall angle to get the business closed for whatever reason.  To justify their reason to deny the permit, it would seem that some study would've been performed to show the economic and environmental benefits and detriments allowing this business to continue.
No, I understand where you are coming from...but it will have a bigger impact than perceived. How much ice is purchased alone to maintain those oysters during shipment and packaging. I am sure this company is a major account for an ice manufacturer.

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/200#post_3503151
Which I agree with to a degree of common sense. When the environments welfare starts to supersede the welfare of the human race then that is an issue and utter stupidity.
It is just as asinine as the number of animals PETA puts to sleep rather than placing them into the care of human homes. An example of human ignorance and foolishness.
As stated how much land is devoted to forestry as opposed to a century ago. Our country is in no danger of desertification.
Of course, common sense should prevail.
Desertification remains a serious question, though. I don't know how you can say we're in no danger of it. The evidence points to the contrary.
The plains states have lost more than half of the topsoil they had after WWII and are losing it at an increasing rate - we may have seen the beginning of a new dust bowl this year. Most of that soil is running off into the Mississippi gulf along with fossil fuel derived fertilizers and has created a hypoxic zone which shows no sign of shrinking. Between the BP clusterf. and the fertilizer runoff, a substantial segment of the gulf economy, and consequently our food supply, is at significant risk, and that's just one example.
We don't know the tipping point. Can we gradually increase the toxin levels of the oceans, the soil and the atmosphere and successfully adapt? Is there a point of no return? I have not heard anyone adequately answer those questions.
Concurrently, what's particularly odd to me, is that it ought to be the conservatives who should be calling that into question. (Apparently the "conservation" part of the name is just propaganda though.) Instead, I see them calling for consumption with reckless abandon because it's necessary - not good, but necessary - for the economy, with, not only, absolutely no plan to scale back once the economy is revived, but calls to quite the contrary: The economy must grow, unregulated (regulation is anti-capitalist after all,) at any costs. In perpetuity.
The medical equivalent of perpetual growth is called cancer.
How long can we sustain that?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503210
No, I understand where you are coming from...but it will have a bigger impact than perceived. How much ice is purchased alone to maintain those oysters during shipment and packaging. I am sure this company is a major account for an ice manufacturer.
If it's a standard operation that relies on that type of material, they normally make it themselves. Look at the swordfish fisherman up in Maine and on the East Coast. They're out fishing for days and weeks, and they have ice making machinery built right into their boats.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503216
Of course, common sense should prevail.
Desertification remains a serious question, though. I don't know how you can say we're in no danger of it. The evidence points to the contrary.
The plains states have lost more than half of the topsoil they had after WWII and are losing it at an increasing rate - we may have seen the beginning of a new dust bowl this year. Most of that soil is running off into the Mississippi gulf along with fossil fuel derived fertilizers and has created a hypoxic zone which shows no sign of shrinking. Between the BP clusterf. and the fertilizer runoff, a substantial segment of the gulf economy, and consequently our food supply, is at significant risk, and that's just one example.
We don't know the tipping point. Can we gradually increase the toxin levels of the oceans, the soil and the atmosphere and successfully adapt? Is there a point of no return? I have not heard anyone adequately answer those questions.
Concurrently, what's particularly odd to me, is that it ought to be the conservatives who should be calling that into question. (Apparently the "conservation" part of the name is just propaganda though.) Instead, I see them calling for consumption with reckless abandon because it's necessary - not good, but necessary - for the economy, with, not only, absolutely no plan to scale back once the economy is revived, but calls to quite the contrary: The economy must grow, unregulated (regulation is anti-capitalist after all,) at any costs. In perpetuity.
The medical equivalent of perpetual growth is called cancer.
How long can we sustain that?
2 thoughts, actually 3. First off, most of my environmental beliefs can be summed up will with Michael Criton's book "State of Fear".
But to discuss this, I believe you're mischaracterizing the right's views of the environment. Remember that email that made the rounds, it showed W's Crawford ranch house made with reclaimed materials, with rainwater collection, solar panels etc. then they compared it with the champion of the environment movement. Which was a poster child of waste etc... If the green movement was REALLY about conservation, they'd have celebrated Bush, not crusify him...
Today's "green" movement is not a movement of stewardship of our planet. It's a power grab. There is nothing green about car's with 200 pounds of heavy metal batteries in them. There is nothing green about lights that have toxins in them. Carbon taxes, cap and trade programs are just ways to add additional controls in the power of the politicians and taking them away from the people. From the smoking gun emails from East Anglia university demonstrating how the data was fudged, cherry picked, and manipulated to generate desired results to demanding major toxins into the house, to the solyndra and Fisker slush funds and guaranteed loans. It is beyond clear that the left has high jacked whatever good intentions there were for stewardship and husbandry. And replaced it with a power grabbing Alchemy scheme to turn carbon into gold...
To reach the conclusion that somehow the conservative right is advocating production without regard to stewardship requires one to disregard reality and replace it with a myth...

 

[ironeagle2006]

Based on the Facts here Bionic that this Farm Produced 40% of all the Oysters from CA here is what the Direct Impact will be Nationwide. As CA is the 8th Largest Economy in the World on its own and losing 40% of all of one Crop of Seafood is going to have a Ripple Effect Nationwide in the Supply. Look for Oysters to Go UP in Price about 2 bucks a LB Unshelled and 3 Dollars a LB Shelled. Also Oyster Shells that where used for Chicken Feed for Calc for Shells will jump in price by about 20%. Then lets look at the Transportation side of things shall we. A lot of OTR Companies hauled that product out of CA all over America well they will Stop Going INTO CA and that will Raise Prices of Stuff coming out why Less trucks in there to haul out Even MORE Freight.
Look for all goods coming out of CA to rise in Price about 5% from Rates on Freight going up. The Overall impact of this ONE thing is going to be an Inflation of Goods prices in the area of 3-4% Nationwide and it will effect Everything from things that need Eggs to Produce to Seafood so about everything that we Eat.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503278
Based on the Facts here Bionic that this Farm Produced 40% of all the Oysters from CA here is what the Direct Impact will be Nationwide. As CA is the 8th Largest Economy in the World on its own and losing 40% of all of one Crop of Seafood is going to have a Ripple Effect Nationwide in the Supply. Look for Oysters to Go UP in Price about 2 bucks a LB Unshelled and 3 Dollars a LB Shelled. Also Oyster Shells that where used for Chicken Feed for Calc for Shells will jump in price by about 20%. Then lets look at the Transportation side of things shall we. A lot of OTR Companies hauled that product out of CA all over America well they will Stop Going INTO CA and that will Raise Prices of Stuff coming out why Less trucks in there to haul out Even MORE Freight.
Look for all goods coming out of CA to rise in Price about 5% from Rates on Freight going up. The Overall impact of this ONE thing is going to be an Inflation of Goods prices in the area of 3-4% Nationwide and it will effect Everything from things that need Eggs to Produce to Seafood so about everything that we Eat.
This oyster company states they supply 40% of the shelled oysters for the SAN FRANCISO BAY AREA, not the entire country.
"Drakes Bay oysters comprise almost 40% of California's shellfish production and are marketed exclusively in the Bay area. Even still, the demand for oyster products far exceeds the state's production level, and the majority of shellfish products consumed in the state are imported from the Pacific Northwest and the Atlantic and Gulf states.1 Without Drakes Bay oysters, the Bay area would have to import an additional ~38,000 lbs of oysters each week.3 And at a time when America's seafood trade deficit (at $10 billion) is second only to foreign oil, every shell counts when it comes to local seafood."

 

[ironeagle2006]

19 Tons of Seafood a Week is NOTHING to sneeze at when it is all one Product. Your still going to see a Increase in all other Prices Nationwide as Costs will INCREASE from lack of Shipping Feed Costs for Chickens and other Issues. You can not remove over 1000 Tons of something from a Marketplace without disrupting the ENTIRE Nation. Be removing 3 Airplanes in Service from the LA to Vegas Service with Southwest during the Weekend you think things are Not GOING TO SCREW UP.

 

[reefraff]

When I heard 30 employees I didn't think it was a huge deal either but evidently they have the lion's share of the market for a highly desirable product. I still don't get it. They farm, not harvest. Them planting oysters in the bay in that quantity certainly has to be a positive for the water quality overall. At least help offset the runoff from the cattle farms.

 

[uneverno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503258
2 thoughts, actually 3. First off, most of my environmental beliefs can be summed up will with Michael Criton's book "State of Fear".
But to discuss this, I believe you're mischaracterizing the right's views of the environment. Remember that email that made the rounds, it showed W's Crawford ranch house made with reclaimed materials, with rainwater collection, solar panels etc. then they compared it with the champion of the environment movement. Which was a poster child of waste etc... If the green movement was REALLY about conservation, they'd have celebrated Bush, not crusify him...
Today's "green" movement is not a movement of stewardship of our planet. It's a power grab. There is nothing green about car's with 200 pounds of heavy metal batteries in them. There is nothing green about lights that have toxins in them. Carbon taxes, cap and trade programs are just ways to add additional controls in the power of the politicians and taking them away from the people. From the smoking gun emails from East Anglia university demonstrating how the data was fudged, cherry picked, and manipulated to generate desired results to demanding major toxins into the house, to the solyndra and Fisker slush funds and guaranteed loans. It is beyond clear that the left has high jacked whatever good intentions there were for stewardship and husbandry. And replaced it with a power grabbing Alchemy scheme to turn carbon into gold...
To reach the conclusion that somehow the conservative right is advocating production without regard to stewardship requires one to disregard reality and replace it with a myth...
For the most part I concur, which is how this relates to the partisan politics subject line.
You'll get no disagreement from me that the proposals from the so called "left" are any more than profiteering either.
Of course it's a power grab. This is a huge part of the problem with American politics: both right and left are artificiallly adversarial branches of the same corporate polity. What's up for debate is almost as interesting as what is not during any given political campaign. Ooo fiscal cliff - oooo environment. (Pay no attention to the assassination by drone of an American Citizen in the complete absence of due process and a criminal violation of the Constitution - committed by Obama - lest I be construed as a democrat apologist.)
One can point to data fudging on both sides of the equation. I am not prepared to say, nor have I said, what is fact. This is because the results of most of the studies in question are paid for by corporations which have a vested interest in thier study's conclusions. As such, I'm saying that caution might be the better course of action than damn the torpedos and full speed ahead, because, while the truth is, as yet, indeterminate, the evidence points toward: stop releasing toxins and genetically modified organisms into our only environment. The planet is not a science experiment.
If the conservatives are actually advocating conservation, I have yet to see evidence thereof. Besides Ducks Unlimited, at what point has any conservative organization advocated reducing consumption or expressed any interest in caring for the environment?
(And please don't tell me raising an entire forest and replacing the multiple tree and their symbiotic floral and faunal species with the one tree the company desires is a sustainable solution.)

 

[darthtang aw]

Look up a republican group called ConservAmerica.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503305
For the most part I concur, which is how this relates to the partisan politics subject line.
You'll get no disagreement from me that the proposals from the so called "left" are any more than profiteering either.
Of course it's a power grab. This is a huge part of the problem with American politics: both right and left are artificiallly adversarial branches of the same corporate polity. What's up for debate is almost as interesting as what is not during any given political campaign. Ooo fiscal cliff - oooo environment. (Pay no attention to the assassination by drone of an American Citizen in the complete absence of due process and a criminal violation of the Constitution - committed by Obama - lest I be construed as a democrat apologist.)
One can point to data fudging on both sides of the equation. I am not prepared to say, nor have I said, what is fact. This is because the results of most of the studies in question are paid for by corporations which have a vested interest in thier study's conclusions. As such, I'm saying that caution might be the better course of action than damn the torpedos and full speed ahead, because, while the truth is, as yet, indeterminate, the evidence points toward: stop releasing toxins and genetically modified organisms into our only environment. The planet is not a science experiment.
If the conservatives are actually advocating conservation, I have yet to see evidence thereof. Besides Ducks Unlimited, at what point has any conservative organization advocated reducing consumption or expressed any interest in caring for the environment?
(And please don't tell me raising an entire forest and replacing the multiple tree and their symbiotic floral and faunal species with the one tree the company desires is a sustainable solution.)
My father in law spent his whole life in the timber industry. They were doing the sustainable harvest deal back in the 1940's. Contrary to popular myth most of their harvests were not clear cuts. He said he saw clear cuts that should have been thinned instead but also saw thinning projects that should have been clear cut.
Part the the scam lies in making money. If a group sues the feds over a project and wins they are able to bill the government for their "costs". So you end up with strip mall ambulance chaser quality lawyers billing 600.00 an hour for their time for the group. As an example there was a logging project in Montana and one of the groups up there sued saying a 100 and some odd foot section on the logging road should be moved 20 feet. They also tried to completely shut the project down which was a salvage logging following a fire. They had a slim chance of winning the case to stop the logging but because the judge did rule in their favor on the road it was considered an win and they get to bill the government for their costs.
Another of their sleazy tactics is to hold up a salvage logging project long enough in court for the dead trees to become unusable.

 

[stdreb27]

Quote:
Originally Posted by uneverno http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503305
For the most part I concur, which is how this relates to the partisan politics subject line.
You'll get no disagreement from me that the proposals from the so called "left" are any more than profiteering either.
Of course it's a power grab. This is a huge part of the problem with American politics: both right and left are artificially adversarial branches of the same corporate polity. What's up for debate is almost as interesting as what is not during any given political campaign. Poo fiscal cliff - poo environment. (Pay no attention to the assassination by drone of an American Citizen in the complete absence of due process and a criminal violation of the Constitution - committed by Obama - lest I be construed as a democrat apologist.)
One can point to data fudging on both sides of the equation. I am not prepared to say, nor have I said, what is fact. This is because the results of most of the studies in question are paid for by corporations which have a vested interest in their study's conclusions. As such, I'm saying that caution might be the better course of action than damn the torpedos and full speed ahead, because, while the truth is, as yet, indeterminate, the evidence points toward: stop releasing toxins and genetically modified organisms into our only environment. The planet is not a science experiment.
If the conservatives are actually advocating conservation, I have yet to see evidence thereof. Besides Ducks Unlimited, at what point has any conservative organization advocated reducing consumption or expressed any interest in caring for the environment?
(And please don't tell me raising an entire forest and replacing the multiple tree and their symbiotic floral and faunal species with the one tree the company desires is a sustainable solution.)
I'm going to make an assumption, that you may not be willing to make, but you did mention ducks unlimited. So I'm going to pursue that train of thought. BUT I do live on the coast, there are 20 different organizations, (who steer clear of politics because it does not further their agenda) that run around down here conserving some part of the coast, whether it be wetlands, fisheries, and natural habitats, and native wildlife... Hate to break it to you, but the ones I support, and volunteer for I've never met a dang democrat. (a few Ron Paulie's which might as well be democrats). They're for the most part, the same people that go to tea party rallies, and put up Romney signs. (now that is ENTIRELY anecdotal. But it has been my experience.) It has lead me to conclude that the reason you don't hear about Republicans advocating good husbandry, is because they're NOT using it as a political football. To me, and to the people I volenteer with, its simply something we do to take care of the stuff God has given us...
Quite frankly, wildlife conservation, is possibly the ONLY thing I've seen die hard conservatives willing support government intervention on... And to go step further, actually donate to stuff like Texas Parks and Wildlife...
The difference is, I don't buy perception you're proposing. After all why in the crap would a kook leftist that runs a "news" show promote something that undermines their salacious political content...
As far as I'm concerned the Green movement has lost all credibility, it isn't about husbandry or stewardship at all. (hell in corpus, they had recycling pickup, and they spent millions buying the little bins, and picking them up every couple of weeks. only to turn around and toss it in the dump)

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by stdreb27 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503324
I'm going to make an assumption, that you may not be willing to make, but you did mention ducks unlimited. So I'm going to pursue that train of thought. BUT I do live on the coast, there are 20 different organizations, (who steer clear of politics because it does not further their agenda) that run around down here conserving some part of the coast, whether it be wetlands, fisheries, and natural habitats, and native wildlife... Hate to break it to you, but the ones I support, and volunteer for I've never met a dang democrat. (a few Ron Paulie's which might as well be democrats). They're for the most part, the same people that go to tea party rallies, and put up Romney signs. (now that is ENTIRELY anecdotal. But it has been my experience.) It has lead me to conclude that the reason you don't hear about Republicans advocating good husbandry, is because they're NOT using it as a political football. To me, and to the people I volenteer with, its simply something we do to take care of the stuff God has given us...
Quite frankly, wildlife conservation, is possibly the ONLY thing I've seen die hard conservatives willing support government intervention on... And to go step further, actually donate to stuff like Texas Parks and Wildlife...
The difference is, I don't buy perception you're proposing. After all why in the crap would a kook leftist that runs a "news" show promote something that undermines their salacious political content...
As far as I'm concerned the Green movement has lost all credibility, it isn't about husbandry or stewardship at all. (hell in corpus, they had recycling pickup, and they spent millions buying the little bins, and picking them up every couple of weeks. only to turn around and toss it in the dump)
Good one. Texas bleeds red. The only heavy concentration of Democrats in this state are the Valley. What else would you find trolling around Port A?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006 http:///t/393539/this-is-why-i-h-a-t-e-partisan-politics/220#post_3503292
19 Tons of Seafood a Week is NOTHING to sneeze at when it is all one Product. Your still going to see a Increase in all other Prices Nationwide as Costs will INCREASE from lack of Shipping Feed Costs for Chickens and other Issues. You can not remove over 1000 Tons of something from a Marketplace without disrupting the ENTIRE Nation. Be removing 3 Airplanes in Service from the LA to Vegas Service with Southwest during the Weekend you think things are Not GOING TO SCREW UP.
Why? They primarily supply the San Francisco area. I can guarantee you it won't affect oyster prices in Texas, when we can go out into our own Gulf and get all we want. There's a multitude of oyster farms around the country that supply oyster shells to chicken farms. 1000 tins isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. Until the link showed up here, I never heard anything about this controversy, and its potential "devastation to the economy". They're oysters. Not oil or gold commodities. You make this sound like Mortimer Duke is trying to corner the Oyster Market on the NY Stock Exchange.

What does Southwest removing 3 planes from service between LA and Vegas have to do with this oyster controversy?
http://www.coastseafoods.com/index.html

 

[reefraff]

19 tons is a lot of slimy friggin oysters a week. For those who want the pacific variety I'd bet there will be a pretty good price increase.

 

[ironeagle2006]

I called around and asked what was going to happen to Local Oyster Prices here with this one place that ONLY Supplied San Fran being Closed and the US Supply going down 19 Tons a Week. Well our Local Fish Monger a place that has been in Business for over 50 Years Supplies some of the Restaurants in Chicago. Well he went Prices for HIM are already up 10% for Pacific Oysters and up 4% for Atlantic side. He was not a happy guy as he goes thru about 2 Tons a week of Oysters here of all types.