Monday, December 18, 2006

Why Ask About Cooking Dungeness Crab?

(Note to cooks: If you're googling for instructions, this is not actually a site giving you instructions for cooking dungeness crab, though there are several methods and even a recipe included in the discussion here. I recommend the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission or this one This post is a discussion about the actions taken by the predatory litigious activist group called "Humboldt Baykeeper.")

Anybody know how to cook Dungeness Crab - and why it has to be prepared a certain way?

Yes. I had a reason for asking. And, yes, I know how to cook crab - and why. Or at least I thought I did.

But lo and behold - I got the Lawsuit-Happy Baykeepers' Christmas begging, I mean, greeting letter, and discovered I have been wrong all these years...

They care so much, they were kind enough to enclose "a pamphlet on safe preparation of Dungeness crab."

They "wish this information were unnecessary, but so long as we're still working to clean up the Bay, please follow the guidelines when enjoying local seafood to protect your health and the health of your family."

Oh really?

"They" felt it necessary to provide this little guide to killing the crab before cooking him, "because of increased levels of pollution in our bays and oceans."

What are you really trying to say, Mr. Sterling-Nichols? You just want to IMPLY it, you don't REALLY want to SAY it, because that would be incredibly irresponsible wouldn't it? Imagine the damage you can do the local fishermen, and local shellfish industry with an irresponsible implication like that. But anything to bring in the money and get people scared so they will turn to BayKeeper for Salvation - oh, and don't forget SEND MONEY to "help us grow stronger and more effective."

Very Sneaky. And downright Despicable.

138 comments:

Heraldo said...

Did you buy it live from the docks? Otherwise it's probably already cooked.

Rose said...

Not yet.

mrsb814 said...

Oops sorry Rose-I've already posted my favorite recipe for crab on Heraldo's Blog.

You want to buy live crab-as it is safer. If a crab dies in the water you can't eat this and not get very sick. The best way to ensure safety is to cook it yourself, but Capn Zach's or Botchies is fine too.

The crabs need to cook long enough to change color to bright orange. If you overcook them they will be quite dried out and not at all tasty.

The water should be at a rolling boil when you place crab in the water-grab them by the smallest hind leg or risk getting pinched and it REALLY hurts! Time to cook the crabs for no more than 12 minutes from when they dropped into the boiling water.

If the crabs are smaller, cook for less time (9 minutes)-I only buy Jumbos and these weigh over 2.5 pounds each.

I was deckhand on a crab boat for a number of years-the recipe I posted is my favorite and not one I pass out much...until I saw that you were hungry for some-enjoy!

If you head out to purchase live crabs from the dock take a clean five gallon bucket along to carry them home. You can put the bucket outside in the shade until the water is ready. Crabs can stay alive overnight this way if absolutely necessary (like when the boats don't get to the dock until midnight)

Rose said...

Thanks. mrsb814. I snagged it from heraldo... For BBQ crab:

Cook crabs whole for 12 minutes in boiling water. Cool and back/clean these and break them into two halves.

Marinate the crab halves in a combination of mayonaise, white wine, garlic and parsley-turning every so often for at least four hours.

Place on hot coals for a couple minutes each side it changes the color to bright orange. Warm the marinade and serve with the crab and/or to dip sourdough bread.

Anonymous said...

killing, cleaning and cooking crab

Rose said...

Funny you should send that link anon 2:15.

Little did you know it has something to do with my post.

mrsb814 said...

I don't agree with killing the crabs by backing them first. I don't know anyone who can do this quickly and it seems rather Barbaric!

I would like to have the source of information Baykeeper used to state shellfish have any detectable levels of toxins. After lab tests our tuna had much lower levels of mercury than what is produced commercially so any references to toxins should be viewed with skepticism.

And of course if you plan to eat Crab Butter make sure you cook the crabs whole which causes the butter to turn a bright mustard color. The Fireman Chef (a San Francisco gourmet) loves it spread on toast. Its is a sign of mature and quite healthy crabs-the more the better!

Anonymous said...

"Very Sneaky. And downright Despicable."

And I'm sure you say the same thing to the pastor at your church Rose.

Anonymous said...

I know you and I know Richard Salzman. You are like twins. Both of you manipulate anything to make your point. Sleaze bags both.

Rose said...

Like taking innocuous instructions on cooking crab and twisting them to suit your aim? Implying grave danger while asking for money? Who's manipulating here?

Anonymous said...

"Implying grave danger while asking for money?'

Like I said... just like you pastor.

Unfortunately Rose you must live a terrible life. I am sorry for that and wish you well. There is a lot to enjoy out there. Paranoia will destroy you. Get help. Really.

Rose said...

Silly me, I really didn't know that you could miraculously just rinse pollutants like Dioxin and Mercury from meat. If only it were that simple.

Anonymous said...

I think this comes from the fact that dioxin and mercury collect in fatty tissue. So if you remove those parts a much as possible you will reduce your potential for exposure. It's really not that hard to understand.

Anonymous said...

9:10 and 9:28 - get a life.

Thank you Rose. I also believe that this type of subtle manipulation is despicable. Shame on you Baykeeper! You pull these antics to justify your existence and to keep money coming in...what to buy a new boat and try to get your name in the paper? You evidently don't give a squat about the local fishing industry. Your attempt to gather cash can and will have serious implications for local oyster farmers, crabbers and fisherman.

Where did you move here from and please go back there!

Rose said...

11:45 The point is, if Baykeeper intends to SAY that the crabs are contaminated, they should do so. To IMPLY it, and use the implication to scare people are bring in donations is wrong. They should issue an immmediate apology to the industry, to the fishermen and to the people of Humboldt County.

mrsb814 said...

I think most people who have enjoyed crabs and other fish and shellfish from the Bay and our ocean take this Baykeeper stuff with a grain of salt (not to pun, Rose).

We have learned over time that nothing ever comes of comments and lawsuits from Baykeeper although the dredging lawsuit did hurt the industry and could and did cause unsafe conditions on the bar.

For newcomers to the area-it would be good to ask questions of the Farm Advisory or the Harbor Commission regarding detectable levels of toxins. This issue has been brought up in the past by either Baykeeper or one of their counterparts, however lab testing didn't back up their 'factoids'.

By now, people who donate money at the end of the year for a tax write off know where it will do the most good. I hope they send help to the rescue mission and St Vincent's kitchen after a great series on the homeless in the Times-Standard.

An apology owed the fishing industry is actually overdue on the dredging lawsuit-they don't expect anything from Baykeeper and mostly ignore these pathetic attempts to get attention...

Anonymous said...

"dredging lawsuit did hurt the industry and could and did cause unsafe conditions on the bar"

What are you talking about? There was no "dredging lawsuit", just a delay of the Costal Commission permit, and the dredging being that was in dispute was not at the bar.

The delay in dredging did cause some minor damage and major inconvince to the boats in the marina.

"lab testing didn't back up their 'factoids'"

Wrong again, testing did back up the fact that dioxin was detected in all samples taken for the dredge, as claimed. Only thing is, is that they were in such low levels that they were determined not to be harmful.

You are rightly critical of Baykeeper, but a least get the facts right.

mrsb814 said...

Well now I am in over my head-but I did put a call in to someone who can link us to the true facts of the situation. Be patient...I'll post when available.

mrsb814 said...

Interestingly, by calling the Harbor Commission this morning my information was refreshed on the Baykeeper 'threat of lawsuit' that cost local fishermen a year delay in dredging the marina.

Also, the channel to the bay is dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers ~yearly~ (in Spring)and my memory was faulty in making a connection between the two. For anyone who wishes to know-the Corps dumps their dredge spoils from the channel offshore 5-6 miles.

The testing of marina dredge spoils cost the District approx. $100,000 and added another $400,000 onto the costs for dredging. (Spoils are dumped on the outgoing tide)

I also found out this morning that dioxin in shellfish is in such a nano amount as to be less than milk from a diary cow! Amazing.

I realize that Baykeeper needs grant funding and donations to keep themselves afloat-perhaps they can have a pancake feed?

Anonymous said...

No kidding...

Oh, but baykeeper and CAT would rather stop the fishing industry in Humboldt to advance their warped goals.

Anonymous said...

Explain how the Baykeeper 'threat of lawsuit' cost local fishermen a year delay in dredging the marina?

The 'threat of lawsuit' which you refer to did nothing. The Harbor District stood their ground and Baykeeper did nothing. Again, the delay came from the time it took the Coastal Commission to process the permit after they received information from Baykeeper at the hearing in Eureka. Law suits or threats there of had no bearing on the time it took to do the dredging.

Anonymous said...

"I realize that Baykeeper needs grant funding and donations to keep themselves afloat-perhaps they can have a pancake feed?"

They have fundraisers all the time. Maybe you should call and ask where the money comes from and let us know.

Anonymous said...

2:14 I got my information from the Harbor District-where does yours come from?

And yes it was a delay of a year to dredge the Marina because of I assume the testing process and the discussion that ensued about where dredge spoils would be disposed. The process involved in public comment periods is of course (not Baykeeper's fault) yet it is a direct result of their actions.

In any case-The Fishing Community took that as a direct link to Baykeeper's interventions and I have been searching online for more info-will keep you posted.

There doesn't seem to be a need for actual scientific study-to bring up the possibilities that toxins may exist which to me is an expensive way to ask a question. Why does Baykeeper have to threaten lawsuits and publish innuendo to garner support but when the actual testing is done in a state certified lab-only scant amounts of toxic substances far lower than would cause a danger to humans is ever found?

Scare tactics may work in fund raising activities in the short term, but over time must prove disastrous for Baykeeper's credibility and I think would work against them in finding support of any type. The public isn't as stupid as 'Baykeeper' seems to believe and after awhile...zilch, zip, nada.

Anonymous said...

Something like 700 members that have greater faith in the BayKeeper than the Harbor District.

Of course I wouldn't consider it a conspiracy that the Harbor District hires the same contractor for testing and dredging. No conflict there.

Anonymous said...

The actual tests are done in a state certified lab-something you wouldn't know if one landed on you.

Anonymous said...

"2:14 I got my information from the Harbor District-where does yours come from?"

From the Harbor District website. Meeting minutes, Feb. 7, 2006.

Anonymous said...

The perception going around is that Baykeepers don't bother with finding facts through scientific study. They cause delays that hamper safety-even though an earlier poster mixed bar dredging with marina dredging-safety is hampered when periodic dredging does not occur on time:

The city fire boat can be left sitting high and dry, unable to assist a boat or bay structure with a fire. Fishermen can be stranded, unable to get off sandbars to go to work and/or come in from work with their catch.

Its mainly an inconvenience but it effects their bottom line which can be iffy at certain times of the year.

Deckhands only get paid a percentage of the catch landed. For that matter boat owners and operators get paid the same way-it isn't an hourly rate or a salaried position.

It is understood that Baykeeper applies for grants and receives funding via donations, but there are not fuel, bait and maintenance bills to pay for you guys when you're in between grant checks. Try working for a living instead of pushing paper and other peoples buttons.

Anonymous said...

"The actual tests are done in a state certified lab-something you wouldn't know if one landed on you."

That has zip to do with taking the samples.

Anonymous said...

And what is that supposed to mean-you wanted to monitor or take the actual samples from dredge spoils yourself? Why didn't you tell them at that time?

Its not hard to imagine taking you out on a dredge would be a liability issue.

Anonymous said...

7:32 Pick one: (Pete, Mike, Anon)I'm getting bored with your conspiracy theories-why don't you just post your name so we can see if you're credible at all and how about some facts rather than your see through 'almost statements'.

Anonymous said...

Well Mary, you just don't have the facts. Stop in at the Baykeeper office and ask them.

Anonymous said...

Seems it is Mary and Rose that have the conspiracy theories yet they have never bothered to talk to the individuals they attack. Chicken shits comes to mind.

Rose said...

Pete Nichols is welcome to post an explanation for his little How-to Cook Crab piece. Right along with his apology to the fishermen and the local shellfish industry for the implied statement.

For that matter, he can go to the media (and that doesn't mean just KMUD and the TS) and explain his source of funding - open his books, living up to that open and transparent ideal I'm sure he aspires to.

Then he can explain why his guys have business cards that list their job title as "litigation consultant."

HIs mailer lists among his accomplishments the "Dioxin listing for Humboldt Bay that will make available additional resources for addressing the dioxin contamination that threatens the wildlife and resource economy of Humboldt Bay."

Cleary is the real deal. The REAL grassroots effort. Been working hard for years, has earned respect, and made a difference. She was not in it for the money.

Anonymous said...

I still say it is you that should talk to him. Get the word from the horse's mouth rather than your conspiracy theory.

You would rather hide behind your computer. Bad reporter. Good rumor monger.

Anonymous said...

BTW - that crab Baykeeper piece was informative for many of us. I read it and used it. Great tasting Humboldt crab. In fact it made more appreciative of our local crab.

You would slam the Baykeeper no matter what they did. So your news is no news considering the source. They do more good for this community than you would wish you could. If you don't take the time to open you eyes and ears you are doomed to you own deamons. Take the time to listen to the other side.

Rose said...

So you defend their implying that the crab is contaminated. Come right out and say it - you want people to believe the bay is hopelessly contaminated, and without "SuperBaykeeper" to the rescue, we are all doomed. You're the conspiracy theorist.

Anonymous said...

No. Not at all. The point is they provide some useful information for killing, cleaning and cooking crab. It is no secret there is the potential for toxics in any seafood product. Certainly in the organs that filter. For those who choose to be aware of how to better prepaire crab in a way that might avoid the toxins this information is valuable. For you it might not be. But like it or not there are a lot of consumers who do care.

Rose said...

You're back. Which name do you want to go by?

Anonymous said...

I don't see why you would care. You aren't open to a constructive dialogue. That would ruin your blog. What fun is it to find middle ground?

Rose said...

Struck a nerve here didn't I?

Anonymous said...

Well perhaps. There of course is bigger story here.

The Harbor District has made some decisions that could be construed as hurting both the bay and the fisherman. I'm no newcomer to the Harbor District. And I have had interaction with the fisherman and the Fisherman's Mktg. Assoc. I attend the District's meetings and participate.

I come to support the Baykeeper from what I know. Not what the Baykeeper tells me.

If, for instance, the District hadn't so eagerly tossed $19 million (I think) into deepening the channel for large scale shipping they could be now dumping maintenance dredge spoils at the Hoods site rather than in the surf. They could have done a comprehensive test of all the bay for toxins. And by now they could be mitigating the problem.

I appreciate the desire to find a one shot solution to making the port productive. But all the promises never materialized. They are still looking. Sooner or later it will catch up to them.

The Baykeeper made many overtures to the Harbor District to work with them. The commissioners refused.

But again, I don't believe you will appreciate any of this. It won't fit into a conspiracy.

Rose said...

700 members, you say?

Anonymous said...

BTW - I was involved in putting that crab prep piece together. Never was there a discussion of making an issue of contamination. It was more like creating instructions for avoiding cross ccontamination when preparing chiken. What the best way to be safe.

And if you knew Pete you would know that he would like nothing better for the fishing industry to thrive.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the spelling. One too many bourbons.

Anonymous said...

Struck a nerve here didn't I?

Rose said...

Yeah. I hate typos.

Anonymous said...

I hate spell check.

Anonymous said...

You probably hate bourbon.

Rose said...

Never tried it.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should.

Rose said...

Perhaps, but I am curious - if you didn't intend to imply the crabs were contaminated, why'd ya do it? Are ya gonna issue an apology? Or is that the closest we're gonna get?

Anonymous said...

From the brochure:

"Humboldt Bay is home to a vibrant Dungeness crab fishery, and here on the North Coast Dungeness crab is woven into our local culture and diet. Dungeness crab is an excellent source of protein, is low in fat and calories, and contains important minerals, such as calcium, iron and magnesium, as well as essential amino acids. The following technique for cleaning and cooking Dungeness crab is suggested because of increased levels of pollution in our bays and oceans. Shellfish can be contaminated with harmful chemicals and heavy metals, including dioxin, PCBs, and mercury."

I don't see anything to apologize for. Sorry.

Rose said...

You forgot the accompanying line: "We wish this information were unnecessary, but so long as we're still working to clean up the Bay, please follow the guidelines when enjoying local seafood to protect your health and the health of your family."

Anonymous said...

Especially when it is followed by:

"To avoid exposure to harmful chemicals, it is important to clean crabs thoroughly before cooking and eating them. Only the meat of crabs should be consumed - not their internal organs. Do not eat the soft "green stuff " (called "crab butter," mustard, tomalley, liver or hepatopancreas) found in the body section of crabs."

If you shop at the Co-Op or are concerned about chemicals in our food you see this sort of information all the time.

Rose said...

How have we all survived all these years?

Rose said...

See, everyone knows...Catching crabs usually leads to cooking them, and that in turn usually means boiling them alive, as you would with a lobster. While some people are squeamish about this, it's really the only way to prepare fresh crab and make sure you won't get sick from eating it. That's because crab (again, like lobster) tends to decay quickly following death. It really requires immediate cooking.

Anonymous said...

And that is true also. It's a matter of perspective Rose. Like I said, I believe the bay could be cleaner. A lot cleaner. There are risks in eating seafood. To what level might they affect me I don't know. But I would rather be safe and use the Baykeepers guidelines.

Look at it this way. If there is doubt in someone's mind about eating crabs at least now they can enjoy them with a little more piece of mind if they follow this procedure. Plus they really taste better to me.

I understand what you are saying. I will take it back to the Baykeeper and see if for the next run there is a better wording.

Anonymous said...

I hate killing anything. But to boil a crab is difficult as it at least seems like a long period of suffering. By wacking em with the cleaver I get it over with and toss em right in the pot after cleaning.

Again. Two views. But there can be two different views can't there?

(I'll retract that tomorrow)

Rose said...

The damage is done. The message is quite clear.

So when do these 700 members meet?

Anonymous said...

Ah Rose. Thanks for being so... conversational. I was hoping we could have a dialogue. Sorry to have distracted you.

In the future if you ever care to really converse let me know.

Rose said...

Must be the bourbon talking.
But yes, there can be two different views.

There doesn't have to be lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

Good morning Richard - are you hungover from the bourbon last night?

mrsb814 said...

Umm Rose-its was 'threat' of lawsuits...

Low in fat and calories? Gimme a break! But who cares-its only in season from Dec 1-June 1.

Now Shrimp is low in fat and calories. Crab doesn't even have the good kind of fat.

You guys could have attacked the fat content and nobody would have taken offense.

When you make a big deal of cross contamination when crabs are already getting cleaned over the sink, rinsed etc we are already wise to cross contamination without even thinking about it-nobody wants sand in their food.

Its the gills that filter out toxins from the bay and like micro-organisms in contaminated soils, crabs have the job of filtering toxins out of the bay.

It doesn't kill them in the process because 'its their job'. We don't eat the gills because they don't look tasty on purpose.

Where is my PhD? I got it on a crab boat and in my kitchen.

And for your information, I was raised by the Superintendant of the Nuclear power plant at PG&E who started there as an operating engineer in about 1963 when we moved here from Walnut Creek.

'Environmentalist' used to be a not nice word in our house since there were tactics used from time to time that didn't sound *kid friendly*.

But after my Dad retired, I visited him on Cobb Mtn and was introduced to his neighbors and friends as an environmental activist! Horrified for a second there--I was introduced to everyone and discovered they were ALL...'Environmental Activists'.

I just happen to go about my activism in other ways. And I don't believe in scare tactics.

By asking questions-Not 'threatening lawsuits'. And I try not to break down and throw insults when I run out of ammo-I just keep searching for links so that people who are looking for information can have accurate information.

But that's just me.

mrsb814 said...

Thank you to Rich Somerville and Maryann Swan for this, a letter I truly enjoyed from a classmate:

Baykeepers should
focus on real issues


So the Baykeepers are filing suit upon Union Pacific to clean up the Balloon Tract? After a rainstorm, have you heard the frogs there? I have. How is it the frogs are croaking and not “croaking.” Funny, I thought amphibians are extremely sensitive to environmental quality issues, yet they seem to be thriving there. Am I the only one who has noted the history of homeless encampments within the tract since Southern Pacific discontinued operations? How is it a transient cancer cluster has not been identified by the County Department of Health?
If the so-proclaimed Baykeepers are truly concerned with bay health, why aren’t they investigating detrimental, cumulative impacts that are actually adversely affecting our bay? Such as floral algal blooms recurring with alarming frequency upon the mud flats of Humboldt Bay, especially within the sloughs from the Freshwater and Jacoby Creek watersheds, the outfall of the eco-groovy Arcata wastewater treatment plant, and the embayment on the north side of the McBride ranch in Beatrice (where College of the Redwoods wastewater treatment plant dumps into). So far as I can remember, the mud flats used to always be brownish-gray. One wonders if the density of septic systems up Freshwater and Jacoby Creek are the source of the blooms? Or maybe wastewater treatment plant located at the lobes of the bay where tidal flushing is non-existent? Perhaps the real problem is that the Baykeepers are not focusing on the real problems of the bay, but neither is anyone else.
Douglas P. Jackson
Bayside

Anonymous said...

Shh..Rose...I think Richard is sleeping it off.

Anonymous said...

"I would rather be safe and use the Baykeepers guidelines."

Huh? You mean they can cut and paste some instructions and it becomes the baykeepers guidelines? You really are gullible. All hail the baykeeper.
IMNSHO

Anonymous said...

"Baykeepers should
focus on real issues"

Your pointing to wastewater treatment plants and septic systems as a source for the cause of algal blooms is way off. There is no data that would suggest that this is the case. The nutrient coming into the bay from these sources is orders of magnitude less than other land uses such as dairy farms, logging and urban runoff. In fact it is unknown what the reason for the recent algal blooms are. There is also a larger than normal density of eel grass as well, makeing the bay look "greener".

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but what does BAY keeper have to do with commercial crabbing? The crabs you are buying off the dock and in the stores come from offshore (In the Ocean). Only sport geeks catch crabs in the bay and there aren't many but the regs allow a smaller size crab to be taken.

What would be the point spending money on printing up brochures with this crap about backing a live crab-you people are twisted! Sick.

Anonymous said...

"fact it is unknown what the reason for the recent algal blooms are. There is also a larger than normal density of eel grass as well, makeing the bay look "greener". "

Well, isnt that the point, 1211? Dont you find it odd that these are the places that discharge from wastesystems are being introduced into the bay?

Anonymous said...

'threat' of lawsuits...?
Not a matter of If, but When.

Anonymous said...

A lot of the wastesystems you mention were in place before current regulations but I will call Doug Jackson-he is an engineer for the City of Fortuna. His letter was reposted here without his knowledge.

Anonymous said...

12:28 ThreatsRUs

Hoping after you get shot down a few times you'll end up looking as bad as your friend PG (another waster of public funds)

Coal in Your stocking!

mrsb814 said...

When I called City Hall in Fortuna to check in with the author of the above letter it was interesting to be greated with a giggle by the person who answered the phone...

The blogs are read by more than you think-

Anyway, I have a quote from Doug Jackson who as of 1:15 today was unaware of his letter to the Times-Standard having been borrowed. He said Baykeepers should all carry a bumper sticker We ALL live upstream I guess too obscure for my direct sense of humor.

In any case he 'works for a living' so he doesn't have time to debate you Richard and Pete, but if you send your email address to me I will forward to Doug.

It has been my experience though that you two do not want to debate facts-you live in the land of Innuendo and would much rather quasi-debate the underinformed.

Anonymous said...

The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed but that he cannot believe anyone else.
-George Bernard Shaw

Anonymous said...

"It has been my experience though that you two do not want to debate facts-you live in the land of Innuendo and would much rather quasi-debate the underinformed."

It is amazing to me that you would say this when virtually everything you have said in this blog stream has been factually incorrect.

Anonymous said...

"Well, isnt that the point, 1211? Dont you find it odd that these are the places that discharge from wastesystems are being introduced into the bay?"

These areas are all also downstream of dairy farms, logging and urban runoff. And if you knew anything about water quality you would know that these can produce far more nutrients than the local wastewater treatment plants. Ask any water quality expert or call the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Anonymous said...

It has been my experience though that you two do not want to debate facts-you live in the land of Innuendo and would much rather quasi-debate the underinformed.

That would be Rose and Mary right?

Anonymous said...

You condescending snob. So we are the uniformed and are supposedly "quasi-debating" with Rose and Mary. You really are an elitist creep who thinks that you are the know it all. what a jerk.

mrsb814 said...

I can only speak for myself-and when as in these last two days I have felt like the lone ranger-or as Ronnie Pelligrini stated "Out putting the world right all by yourself"-I call the experts.

Though, I didn't have to call the experts about your crab killing method which is cruel and barbaric but its de riguer for you guys to pull the scare tactics.

To say the 'bay is more polluted' so we have to alter the time tested procedure of putting crabs out of this world as quickly and painlessly as possible to become our most prized dinner...to change this to suit some kind of fund raising goal for your new Baykeeper office downtown-is quite twisted.

Commercial crabs aren't caught in Humboldt Bay-they are harvested from the ocean and not all that close to shore.

The Dioxins you keep bringing up are in greater supply in the milk we drink than the crabs we eat-even though it is a crab's main purpose in Life to filter toxins from their own habitat-its a survival tool that crabs use to protect their young.

I can't believe you have studied this much-You state crab is low in fat and calories...that is a total hoot as any dieter knows crab is high in saturated fat and calories.

I have been in the bay and scooped up hundreds of crab fry in wonder at their fragility. They are perfect little creatures! Clear, and flexible-everything and nothing like their parents. It would probably not be such a good place to raise kids-Humboldt Bay-IF it were polluted...but I guess the crab parents didn't read your propaganda.

You-Richard and Pete, are the underinformed and yet you keep at it all day and into the night as in Richards' drunken posting without substance last night...

Ignore you-we should, but we have asked each other-why and to what purpose? We understand your funding motivation (everyone needs to eat) and yet we cannot fathom why you would take a chance posting- basically against crab fishermen- at their busiest time of year and when they certainly aren't checking the blogs for creeps. Take that personally if the shoe fits.

Anonymous said...

Mary, Since you are a fan of George Bernard Shaw here is a quote you may borrow:

"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time."

Anonymous said...

Another fan of the Quotations Page... or you have been to my webpage?

Anonymous said...

Both. Thanks for the time you have given to the issue. It must be appreciated by people who have no idea what has gone on here and some who will not post for whatever reason!

Anonymous said...

Start checking your facts before you flap girls:

3 ounces of crab meat = 1 gram of fat

Anonymous said...

And 94 calories. Mary sure is SMART.

Anonymous said...

Wow! The glare of the tin foil hats is blinding me! That's some analysis to connect a crab recipe to political manipulation of the masses. You must be exhausted. Please, Rose et. al., keep this up -- it's great for a laugh when I'm bored.

Loved the GB Shaw quote.

Anonymous said...

There are a lot more where that came from:

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_Bernard_Shaw/

mrsb814 said...

You know what's good for blog stress Rose? I found these great cookies: Dark Chocolate Mint Cookie Clusters from Archer Farms.

Target only has these on the end caps I guess there isn't enough room on their shelves.

Remember when EPIC sued to make sure the new Target store was built smaller than originally planned and they screwed around with access to the Bay so there was a 100 foot buffer instead of 50 feet? Now you have to tote your kayak down the hill instead of just launching it like at Hilfiker Lane...do you think Pete worked with EPIC then?

Now I can dislike him for not being able to find those cookies in a normal place at Target-at least they are always on sale at the end cap! (I try to look on the bright side)

And guess what? Its less than 70 calories per cookie and an instant cure for stress. I had one for stress busting purposes only of course. And it really killed the tase of toxins in my crab sandwhich.

mrsb814 said...

Tase=Taste

Anonymous said...

I think Pete Nichols would like nothing better than to see Pete Nichols thrive. If he gave a crap about people who make their living on the bay he would find less confrontational methods of achieving his supposed goals.

Anonymous said...

Baykeeper is not about assuring the financial success of people using the Bay. It is about the success of the Bay, itself. Guess what, not every natural resource is there for people to use up as they want and without regard. If you really cared about the Bay, you'd get that.

Anonymous said...

Baykeeper is at least in part about ensuring the financial success of Pete Nichols. I get that loud and clear.

mrsb814 said...

Here we go again...

If you guys really cared enough about the bay or environmental issues to study them in their entirety-you would understand that crabs are some of the vacuum cleaners invented by Nature itself. The Earth has many helpers in taking care of toxins and things that go wrong-least of which is Baykeepers.

Microorganisms in the gadzillions outnumber you. Crabs and other creatures collectively do their part to clean up their own environment. You can pat yourself on the back all you'd like for collecting money and spending it in the community and helping the local economy, yet you do little to actually 'clean up' anything.

Using scare tactics as a fundraising mechanism is a childish prank that hurts others who would like to contribute economically to the community-so what you gave, you would actually take away without a thought to the larger circumstances.

Another quote by George Bernard Shaw comes to mind-

Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing.

Except bottom feeders sacrifice nothing.

Anonymous said...

I think we all should get together and send richard a truck load of bourbon. He seems nicer when drunk.

Anonymous said...

Nicer than what??

Anonymous said...

I didn't say "nice" just "nicer"....ok nicer than the acidic, vitriolic, manipulating, dictatorlike, anti-democratic, woman hating skunk that he normally is.

Anonymous said...

Well, let's see, Mary, we've got the term RINO for those type of republicans; what do we call an environmentalist in name only? How about an Eureka elitist -- (help me out on that one, bloggers.)

Sorry that Target is too small for you.
You've got to do more than just drive a Prius.

Rose said...

I've said before - Gallegos does not have one iota of Richard's dedication and determination, work ethic and smarts. I am constantly amazed that Richard continues not only to defend him but to excuse his failings. It must be exhausting.

Richard knows that I think he is being badly used - hung out to dry, as it were.

That'll do for now, Happy holidays, and Merry Christmas all.

mrsb814 said...

Well, let's see, Mary, we've got the term RINO for those type of republicans; what do we call an environmentalist in name only? How about a Eureka elitist -- (help me out on that one, bloggers.)

Sorry that Target is too small for you.
You've got to do more than just drive a Prius.


#1 'Mary' doesn't drive a Prius-I wish.

#2 'Eureka Elitist' sounds a bit like the tag you stuck on Nancy Flemming and I am quite proud of my support for her even though the election didn't go that way.

Other than politics I have in common with Nancy Flemming that we both know how to split wood and pump water (actually mine was gravity fed, she pumps hers...but I did occasionally have to hire a truck and pump if we broke a water line)

We drive older model maroon vehicles but hers is perhaps more fuel efficient. My Suburban gets 16 mpg unless I get lucky and buy gas in Medford (no MTBE).

Target was just fine before EPIC got involved-its fine now but there would be room on shelves for my favorite cookies if you had left well enough alone. EPIC interferance didn't make a better Target-just a smaller one.

'Environmentalists' used to use Pro Bono attorneys to go after the 'Bad Guys' not get fulltime jobs out of grants and community donations to rent office space and toss out nuisance lawsuits and vague threats.

In my spare time I volunteered to take minutes for a group to study environmental issues but-I didn't stop there...I called the regulatory agencies and arranged joint meetings and pointed out when websites weren't user friendly or information that the public needed wasn't available.

I write letters and ask questions and meet new people always looking for something to like about them-even if its frustrating, my time is never wasted.

Personal attacks on those you disagree with are much easier than finding what's wrong and trying to fix it together. But you have your way and I just can't even agree on anything you put in that brochure.

It was mean and could have been hurtful except I don't know one fisherman who has been impacted by your cooking guidelines through 2PM today. Maybe your supporters don't care and would have sent money anyway.

Whatever floats your boat-

Merry Christmas and Safe Holidays to *Everyone*-including Richard and Pete.

Anonymous said...

That brochure has been out for 14 months.

Ah... but Mary, you did learn that crab meat is low in fat.

Anonymous said...

Lawsuits are the only thing that gets the attention of the truly corrupt offender. I know, 'cause I'm in the trenches. You can't talk nice and reasonable and work it out -- I tried for YEARS, and they told me to fuck off over and over. So, finally, I came back with my lawyer. Until you've done what I've done, you have no idea what it takes. It takes a hellva lot more than arranging meetings. And I am not Baykeeper, just a little no-name, less $$ local. Baykeeper's got it going on -- weaklings like me are happy they're here.

Anonymous said...

4:15 You forgot to sign your post--Sarah Salzman?

Anonymous said...

Maybe Mary was looking for this on the Harbor District's site:

6.1.4 Dioxin and Similar Toxic Materials Associated with Past Land Uses "Dioxin" is one of a number of chemical compounds that are created as byproducts or contaminants when chemically complex hydrocarbon structures are reacted commercially to add chlorine to one or more of the constituents.10 That is, dioxin is not a formulated product, but it occurs as a constituent in a variety of commercial- grade products containing chlorine, including herbicides and pesticides, as well as compounds used to inhibit biological activity in other contexts. One of the categories of compounds in which dioxin has been found is wood preservatives that have active ingredients consisting of cyclic ("aromatic") hydrocarbon molecules with multiply substituted chlorine atoms. Such chemicals were used in many wood products manufacturing facilities or mills in the 1950s and 1960s as anti-fungal or preservative agents for wood products. The most widely known of these compounds (or mixtures of chemically similar compounds) was pentachlorophenol (also known as "penta" and PCP). PCP is itself a toxic material that is now banned from use in the United States.11

Dioxin-contaminated PCP is known to have been used at several lumber-processing mills in the Humboldt Bay region. In 2002 dioxin was detected in surveys carried out at the Sierra Pacific Industries mill on the Samoa peninsula adjacent to the Mad River Slough. Detectable contamination was found in the sediments under the mill, as well as in sediments in Mad River Slough. Dioxin was also detected in oyster tissue samples from commercial mariculture beds in Arcata Bay.12 Recent detection of dioxin in sediment has been confirmed elsewhere in Humboldt Bay, but the extent of the occurrence is uncertain.

More here

Anonymous said...

"I write letters and ask questions and meet new people always looking for something to like about them-even if its frustrating, my time is never wasted."

You are awesome.

Anonymous said...

Nope, not Sarah Salzman. Like I said, I'm a no-name. But I have been verbally threatened, beyond the fuck off, so anonymous will have to do.

mrsb814 said...

Thanks for posting here as well as Buhne Tribune 5:30 I will copy my post from there as well.

mrsb814 said...

You are obviously not giving up your quest for funds-yet no one is debating the existence of Dioxin in or around the Bay. It's in your fireplace and you don't even have to burn toxic wood!

From Google: "JunkScience.com spotlights and debunks faulty scientific data and analysis used to promote special agendas, such as those of activist groups"

I couldn't find your information nor what I received from the Harbor Dist Office. Since it is a holiday weekend, I will be patient.

I would like to know from a scientist in the field what the concentrations of Dioxin are in shellfish and I would also like to know the concentration in a glass of milk-since I was told a crab has less Dioxin than a glass of milk.

I'm curious-aren't you?

Anonymous said...

No, just amused. Or maybe bored.

Anonymous said...

Why should we have to blindly debate the soundness of Baykeeper's science? Any scientific findings that are not placed firmly in the public arena are by definition not scientific at all. It's that whole scientific method thing, which requires that findings be made public so that others have a chance to replicate or refute findings.

If Pete Nichols is really taking all of these legal actions on the basis of his scientific findings, I urge him to behave in a scientific manner and publish them in their entirety--not only for the sake of a community with so much to lose, not only for the numerous people his litigious behavior could put out of work, but also for the sake of the science itself.

Pete's so-called science is not science at all until he does so.

Anonymous said...

Odd that I woke up this morning thinking of a phrase that ends in: "...Faster than you can say Class Action Lawsuit".

I wonder how Pete (and Richard) would like the new tag-'Defendant'?

Anonymous said...

How is boiling a crab to death any less barbaric than killing it with one quick blow?

Anonymous said...

The Dungeness crab is a good environmental indicator of toxic contaminants because it bioaccumulates contaminants in its tissue especially from the consumption of food containing the contaminants. It stores these contaminants in the fat-rich digestive gland (hepatopancreas). It bioconcentrates contaminants at a higher level than finfish and many other shellfish (e.g. shrimp), partly because of its relatively sedentary nature and because it favours sandy substrates where contaminated sediments often accumulate.

Anonymous said...

And thus without testing every crab you eat it is good practice to remove and not eat that part of the crab.

Anon.R.mous said...

Rumor has it that the signs that the Humboldt Baykeepers put up and used had their aluminum come from overseas, from areas known to use child labor.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the signs are made from recycled plastic, but I am sure recycling also fits into your conspiracy theories somewhere as well.

Rose said...

They're obviously not cheap...Question is - who paid for them? Who approved the County putting up signs with a group's (any group's) name, logo and phone number on it? What other groups get that privilege?

And why would the County do this with a group who is poised to sue them til the cows come home?

Anonymous said...

Why, why, why? Call up the Baykeeper and ask them.

Paranoid much? Relieve that anxiety with a few phone calls.

Rose said...

What anxiety?

Anonymous said...

2:43, you say that you are in the know...just cough it up then and be done with it.

mrsb814 said...

Funny that calling the Harbor Dist and Water Quality Board for the information requested on ppb Dioxin in crab vs milk leads back to Baykeeper. The information is 'proprietary' and stems from a lawsuit-Baykeeper vs Sierra Pacific. Does that ring a bell Baykeeper?

Also funny that you cut and paste the parts you like, the parts that may sway people needing a tax write-off; yet not the documents in their intirety so that interested parties can decide the merits for themselves.

Funnier still that my post of dioxin in crabs being less than a glass of milk-was your own information and you didn't have a snappy comeback, just blah, blah blah (boring) and I haven't learned whether you can say Polychlorinated Biphenyls without a tutor.

mrsb814 said...

I wanted to post a link to information as well. This is a searchable document titled a "Compilation of Water Quality Goals". I received this link from Robert Klamt, whose title is Chief of the Timber Harvest Division
North Coast Water Quality Control Board.

One disconcerting thing about previous posts from supposed Baykeeper 'members' is the angle. I get a kink in my neck every time I feel like someone is casting doubt on the word of our elected officials or people in authority at Regional Water Boards and/or the Harbor District.

There would be no reason to subvert known facts nor to cherry pick scientific findings as I believe activist groups do from time to time for certain purposes like fundraising.... in any case I choose to study things from a variety of sources and encourage others to do so as well. Cross checking is an important tool and if you are time crunched don't go for the sound bites-go to source documents you can fact check through a good librarian:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/available_documents/wq_goals/wq_goals_2003.pdf

This is a 200 page document but I have quite a few more links to verifiable information. Send me an email I would be happy to hook you up.

Rose said...

THANKS mrsb814. This is important.

Anonymous said...

And of course Mary checked with the Baykeeper.

Anonymous said...

BTW - Mary are you still working for Arkley?

Robin Shelley said...

Used to be a little permethrin would kill crabs... oh, wait! Permethrin's a chemical - Baykeeper couldn't recommend that... maybe we should just smother the little devils to death in olive oil! Of course, olive oil doesn't do much for itching...
Am I on the wrong site?

mrsb814 said...

BTW Still working for Arkley?

No, Richard. I haven't had the pleasure of working for the Arkley family but if you think I should submit a resume, I'll have to spiff it up to include kitchen designer and blog debater. Maybe you could submit a reference for me? I hear they pay well and have great benefits!

Anonymous said...

Hey Mary - where's da facts?

Rose said...

You don't understand, Richard - I mean VT - the FACTS are precisely what are missing from Baykeeper's little hit piece.

He can't come right out and SAY the crabs are contaminated, so he IMPLIES that they are in order to bolster his own position and set the people up to believe in him as the savior.

It's sneaky, and if you really did have a part in concocting that little piece of propaganda, then that in and of itself is fascinating, since the spin has been that you are not involved with the Sterling-Nichols' - that they pushed you aside during the recent election.

I suspect the truth will be coming to light in the days to come.

Anonymous said...

You're funny.

Anonymous said...

Well Mary was going to set us straight with some nice hard facts from Ronnie - what happened?

Anonymous said...

Water Board to soon close the door on the Dioxin listing of Humboldt Bay issue. Who thinks they will stand by the Baykeeper?

Rose said...

You mean Fredric Evenson's "Moneykeeper"?

Call 'em what they are, predatory litigious moneykeepers.

Anonymous said...

You didn't answer the question.

Rose said...

Who pays you, Richard?

Anonymous said...

Too late:

Dioxin listing for bay legit, says state.

Rose said...

Nice headline. Did you actually READ the article Richard?

How much are they gonna pay you for your efforts here?

Anonymous said...

Says a lot when that is your only comeback. Facts discredit your questionable antics.

Rose said...

Funny how you always use phrases that describe exactly what you are doing.

Anonymous said...

Rose you are awesome. These keeper types are just the flavor of the day con-man. Unfortunately you can't con people who aren't willing to be con'd. Very sad to say that the Jim Jones as savior mentality is alive and well in a world with little direction. The modern day enviro movement is primed to suck in the unstructured minds needing some type of fullfillment. Just like Jones the leaders of these groups present a spiritual aura and live the high life off the money they so fraudulently suck in.HSU/CR/and to much dope keep a steady supply for new converts and their money. Just keep telling the truth Rose.