Comment on wtf
Bluewing@lemmy.world 3 days agoSeafood requires a lot of expensive resources to acquire. Boats, nets, traps, baits, access to the water, and not to mention the inherent risk of being on the ocean. Better to hunt herbivores on land.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
Sure you can spend a lot if you want, but I have caught crabs with a bit of string. Seen people catch stuff bare handed as well.
Bluewing@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Fishing is fun and good, but you still need access to water with a fish living in it. But a sharp stick or a rock is still cheaper and easier. Even a bow and arrow is very low tech and easily fashioned.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
Well I live on the coast in the UK, so there is quite a bit of access to water.
Bluewing@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I live in Minnesota USA-- The Land of 10,000 lakes. It’s actually 14,380 bodies of water 10 acres or larger. 117,000 if you add the waterbodies/ponds smaller than 10 acres. I’m sitting in my house drinking my tea and looking at the lake I live on. Minnesotans own 14,505 registered watercraft per 100,000 people-- the most in the US. And all of us spend LOT of time fishing on them. But it would be extremely illegal to use nets or traps to fish for them. (There are carve outs for Native Americans to do some limited netting).
So historically, eating fish on a non-commercial scale has been an important thing in this region since before European settlers showed up. But it has never been the main source of meat due to the general extra work it takes. It’s still easier to stick an arrow, (even a well thrown rock), into rabbit or squirrel. And a far bigger payout in calories to shoot that arrow into a white tail deer, elk, or moose with less effort than a fish.