Originally Posted by gbeck
However, the lobster fishermen are not going to alter their methods or harvest more lobsters just based on a few missing lobsters from one store's tank. So there really is no net effect on the harvesting of lobsters.
You're still creating more demand, and if a lot of people do it....
When all is said and done, sure, perhaps the lobster won't survive. But one thing is 100% sure. If the lobster remains in the tank, it will has zero chance of surviving.
But it will just be replaced. I don't think that's doing any good. If you *stole* the lobsters, it makes some sense because the fisherpeople are losing money, but of course I don't recommend that either.
If this was done in significant frequency, the net effect on the lobster market would be that the fishermen would have to spend more time harvesting. They would need more cages. It would cost them more money to do their work, which would drive up the price for lobster.
But they're being PAID by the liberators! It would cost them more but they're getting more money! I don't think the way to destroy a business is to pay them.
Just think of the extreme example. Let's just say that 50% of the lobster that made it to the stores was bought by lobster sympathists, and liberated. The fishermen (sorry, and fisherwomen) would have to work twice as much to get the same amount of product out to the consumers. This would surely raise the demand, and price, for lobster.
...and what if we convince people to stop eating lobsters? The fisherpeople would get less money (and no money from us), and the demand would be way down so they'd catch less.
If the activists could determine a good safe place to release the lobsters, the fisherpeople would in effect be helping to free the lobsters by bringing them to the store so people could save them there.
WHAT? The fisherpeople are the ones catching the lobsters in the first place!
I say sometimes you just have to follow your heart.
I say you (by "you" I mean people, not you specifically) should think things through as much as possible and realize the *overall* effect you're doing.
Think of it this way:
There's a train coming down the tracks, and your friend is standing in front of it. You could go push him out of the way, but then you'd be standing on the tracks in his place (and he might die from the fall anyway). I think it makes a lot more sense to either stop the train (humans who eat lobsters), or keep people from standing on the tracks entirely (get stores to stop selling lobsters).
I realize that you *are* trying to think about every possibility, and that's good. It is really hard to say what would happen in each situation. Driving up the price *could* work, but I still think that's the wrong approach.
seyorni, that's a really interesting idea!