Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikepurvis | Hacker News Reader

The idea that this isn't "fishing" because they're tossed back afterward is really beyond me. Seems about equivalent to chopping the fin off a shark and then dumping what remains into the water to bleed out and die.

With proper regulation, it seems possible this could be done somewhat humanely— particularly if the draw from any one crab was strictly limited, and their time out of water was also very limited. Eg, if the facilities were right on board the boat, so it would out and back in all within in the span of a few hours.

View on HN

> The idea that this isn't "fishing" because they're tossed back afterward is really beyond me. Seems about equivalent to chopping the fin off a shark and then dumping what remains into the water to bleed out and die.

I guess I'm missing something, how is this in any way comparable to that? They're not cutting off a piece of the crab, just drawing some blood and putting them back. Why would they bleed out and die? Do humans bleed out and die after drawing blood?

I agree but I also don't think its fair to assume this doesn't damage them. Humans and crabs are not the same so I don't think unless you are a subject matter expert you should be drawing conclusions like this.

According to an article I read last night (might be the same article as this one) - they are trying to figure out if this is the case; in short, they believe there are effects (seems a reasonable thought!), but they don't know just yet what they are, or how severe they are.

So they simulated this with a bunch of crabs - caught a bunch, let them sit out in the sun for a while, transported them, bled them, let them sit some more, then tossed them back in. Half of them they didn't bleed (control); before they tossed them in, they attached tracking devices to their backs, and are monitoring their movements.

Now - they don't say what the data they got back is or means or which crabs they came from. But from the article, it's apparent that at least some of the crabs are still moving around and are alive. How many, what they are doing, if they are acting normal - none of that is mentioned.

It will be interesting in what they eventually find. I don't think it's reasonable to say there isn't any effect from the practices they describe - it certainly seems like there could be issues based on the conditions and amount of blood drawn (and the fact that they aren't breathing while out of water - for what sounds like several days minimum!). What I hope they find is that things aren't as bad as feared, but that some minor changes can be made to make the creatures less stressed.

Hopefully we'll find out very soon...

I really appreciate such a detail response! Generally speaking I wish more programs that involved animals were treated with this type of respect and not the assumption that it isn't harmful without due diligence.

> Do humans bleed out and die after drawing blood?

If you take a third of it, then throw them in the woods to fend for themselves, some definitely will.

Almost all will die without medical care.

Class III Hemorrhage involves loss of 30-40% of circulating blood volume. The patient's blood pressure drops, the heart rate increases, peripheral hypoperfusion (shock), such as capillary refill worsens, and the mental status worsens. Fluid resuscitation with crystalloid and blood transfusion are usually necessary.

Even without taking blood, most humans would not survive in the wild anyway, unlike the horseshoe crabs.

They drain a third of its blood, and they could easily be drawing from an animal that has already been recently caught. They can be out of water for days. Comparing this to a minor inconvenience is a deeply inaccurate analogy.

> is asinine

This breaks the HN guideline against calling names in arguments: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Please don't do that in comments here, or edit it out when it slips in.

So while I understand your sentiment I actually have to respectfully disagree. There's a difference between calling an argument foolish and calling a person foolish.

"Comparing this to a minor inconvenience is intellectually dishonest" <- rough paraphrasing of the comment

"I read what you wrote, you are intellectually dishonest" <- a true attack against a person

The comment may not have been terribly civil (and that's a good reason for criticism) but I honestly don't see it as name calling.

The guideline doesn't say "don't call people names"; they say "don't call names." Here's the text:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

That is my point of view as well. I changed it to your paraphrasing, though.

'Intellectually dishonest' is still name-calling in the sense of being a generic pejorative that adds no information. So it still breaks that guideline. As shortimer pointed out, it isn't about personal attacks. Personal attacks are certainly not ok here, but other things are not ok too.

The guideline contains practical advice for how to edit the name-calling out of these things: simply shorten them. In this case, "Comparing X to Y is intellectually dishonest [or asinine]" can be shortened to "X is not Y".

Ah, that makes much more sense then! Thanks for the clarification.

Is there a rate limit on editing? I can no longer change my post, but I will keep this in mind.

[edit] - Appreciated.

There is (2 hours) but I'll turn it off that post above.

They mark the crabs' shells so they aren't bled more than once per season.

That's good to know; I was wondering if it would be possible to do something like that. Obviously it requires the cooperation of everyone doing this to ensure that the marks are made correctly, and respected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com