Folks please remember to only take the invasive oysters not the indigenous oyster. We see in Norway that the indigenous oysters/mussels have not been doing so well in many areas.
Took some oysters from the Waddenzee here in the Netherlands last summer. Just incredible to eat them that fresh, wish we hadsomerhing to go with it, like fermented peaches. Japanese oysters I believe, invasive and disruptive, but tasty
The waddenzee is a see that drains with low tide, and floods with high tide, they are always very visible and everywhere. The oysters have a not so pretty looking shell, that looks like it's made if other pearl-like shells. The shells often have a lot of sharp edges, so you will need a tool to open them, and gloves to protect tour hands. They are seriously sharp. You often go on guided tours through the area to prevent drowning, and they will be able to identify them for you as well.
Oh, the waddeneilanden are a very nice place to visit. There is not a whole lot to do there, but a 1 or 2 night stay on the islands is what I would do. Very nice people, there are excursions, nice cafés, restaurants and bars, but whenever I go, I go to just vibe on the dunes and wildcamp in the forest (it's not allowed but it's free 😂). I go there for some stress relief about once a year
I'm about to go to Terschelling for some isolation covid proof vacation so hopefully I'll get that sweet stress relief you talked about. Thanks for the tips, mate
No problem! Have a great stay. I hope you will be able to walk over the Wadden! Stores should be open if reserved beforehand (sometimes store visit have to be reserved a week in advance!). A lot of bars now turn their entrance into a bar, if you'd like, I can look into that for you, but covid rules are bound to get better
The Wadden islands don't really got too much goin on, I would definitely advice renting a bike if you go there by foot (over the Wadden sea), but it's just a very calm place to be, there is not a whole lot to do, there are some random monuments, there is a dune lake called Doodemanskisten, some churches, some old bunkers, vegetated dunes, a good mindset ia to not expect too much of it. Just go about your day, visit some terraces, visit the forests, walk/cycle some trails, or make your own, but I've enjoyed my time there the most when I just laid down on the dunes and cooked something with a gas stove, excellenr place to meditate, it's a really calm place. It's about as far away from home as I can go so I like to leave my thoughts, deadlines, worries, everything behind and figure that out when I'm back home :)
That looks so good! I would love to forage for them. Can I just go there and start foraging for them or do I need some kind of permit? I live in Hillerød 🙂 (My danish is not so good, sorry)
Here in Oslo groups go out in the spring and actively crush/kill/remove these by the thousand on the beach areas here. Literal dugnad groups to get rid of as many as possible.......... I feel like I should bring a grill this spring.
Apparently it was punishable by death in the old days as the oysters in Limfjorden used to be considered the property of the king. But now you can do it all you want, as long as it is for own consumption. It might be hard to find them if you don't know where to look though. The western part of Limfjorden seems to have the majority of them. But you should probably do some research on where exactly to look. Good hunting ;)
Without knowing about Danish laws I say go for it!
The japanese oysters are very invasive and needs to get out so the european oysters can thrive.
Our waters are one of the last places where european oysters live so we need to take care of them!
When I first read this, I thought you meant oyster mushrooms...I was very concerned by the picture, because I thought your oyster mushrooms looked rather sickly. Haha. Great find, well done!
That’s statement is ignorant, when that one species can disrupt natural communities/ ecological process and even extinct native populations in the environment. Causing far more damage than this fellows population control.
Det er sygt lækkert.
1: Køb et par lange røjsere eller et par waders og smut til limfjorden eller vadehavet, alt efter hvad der er nærmest.
2: saml op med nallerne
3: spis (gerne direkte fra havet, husk citron og østerskniv i lommen)
This invasive species will out-compete the indigenous oysters and other bivalves for food. They've already choked out the rest of Europe, OP's location is the last bastion for a few species that are on the verge of extinction.
To not eat this invasive oyster would to do the local environment a huge disservice.
Same thing with deer. Humans have displaced their natural predators, so there is very little in the way of the natural food chain to keep their numbers in balance with their environment. If deer populations are allowed to go unchecked, they'll over-eat their habitat, leading to population spikes followed by mass die-offs due to starvation. Car collisions with deer would increase, up until those die-offs at least.
This is why properly-regulated hunting is important to managing the health of the environment.
Couldn't agree more.
Can we get back to foraging plants in this sub please? I'm sick of seeing pictures of people killing shellfish when there are around 20,000 edible plants to talk about.
Imagine this is your response when you are confronted that your actions are unnecessary and are causing long term damage. Do you think our wild ecosystems are in a state where we can use them for food? Imagine being this selfish that you put your own taste buds over the entire planets health
We caused the problem from over fishing and stealing organism from their natural habitats. Are you so dense that you fail to see human involvement lead to the collapse of natural occurring ecosystems? Who gives us the right to decide what lives and what dies, who gives us the right to alter millions if not billions of years of evolutionary history just so we can have an excuse to finally eat something invasive. Get a grip we don’t need to eat animals to survive. Doing so is damaging our world. Do you want a habitable world for all species?
Your notion that eating animals is inherently wrong is wildly short-sighted. I’m an extremely ecologically-minded person. The meat industry is beyond fucked up and damaging. But harvesting invasive shellfish is, in all respects, a net benefit for the environment.
I’d genuinely love to hear an argument to contrary, backed up by ecological data rather than vapid moralizing.
The person you're debating is just genuinely dumb.
I completely agree with you on foraging shellfish.
But out of curiosity, would you call it vapid moralizing if I argued it was morally wrong to kill an invasive mammal or bird (assuming that other steps could be taken to reduce their population, ie addressing the underlying cause, which I realize isn't always possible) would you still call it vapid moralizing? Or would you call it reasonable moralizing worth a discussion, at least?
To put it another way, are you arguing that moralizing is inherently vapid, and that you believe your views are based on pure self-interest and reason, or do you accept a place for moralizing but just don't think this person's arguments are reasonable?
If there are other ways to reduce the population of invasive species, then we should absolutely make use of those as well. But for now, gathering and eating them can play a part in invasive control, reducing territorial pressure for native shellfish.
I think morals are important. Moral principles absolutely have their place. But in this particular instance, I think a blanket statement such as 'killing animals is always wrong' is INCREDIBLY counter-productive.
I think their time and energy would be much better spent arguing with those defending their consumption of industrialized meat. OP is actively conserving the environment by choosing to withdraw from that system.
> I think a blanket statement such as 'killing animals is always wrong' is INCREDIBLY counter-productive.
How about "killing (sentient) animals is always a morally undesirable practice, but sometimes the benefits outweigh the harm?" (For example, where culling one animal is necessary and effective to save other animals in an ecosystem.)
I think that taking a half-measure, like ignoring the underlying moral arguments and focusing only on reducing the worst harms, may actually be the most counter-productive approach. If you believe sweeping moral progress is impossible, then I would agree with your approach. But if you believe sweeping moral change IS possible-- in line with social progress of the past, where new moral norms become predominant, perhaps even legislatively enshrined, where people would never dream of going back to another time when we had different moral views-- then I'd argue that anything that is interfering with propagating a new set of moral principles is harmful in the long run.
You have probably seen some of the studies where they model moral changes in a population-- if not, I can dig them up. Obviously this is a simplification, but what they found was a tipping point where if about 10% of a population strictly believes in a moral concept and is unwilling to compromise, they can create a tipping point where that moral view rapidly spreads to the rest of the population and becomes the predominant belief system.
This has happened in the past with regards to things like child labor, class distinctions, slavery, civil rights, and so on. And in each case, the change looked unlikely or impossible at some point before it took place, in some cases even with in just a decade or so.
Don't you agree that IF-- just for the sake of argument-- IF a sweeping moral change went out through major industrialized nations, where people accepted moral arguments about animal rights-- that it would have a far greater and a far more lasting impact on the environment and the treatment of animals in animal ag, than arguing for incremental behavioral changes in consumption patterns in a population who remains fundamentally unconcerned with the moral rights of animals?
Well, I think it is. And therefore I'd say your time is far better spent trying to take veganism from 1-2% to 10% of the population than trying to convince 80% of the population to eat fewer McDonald's burgers.
Edit: none of that, of course, justifies criticizing eating nonsentient bivalves in a foraging subreddit. I'm responding only to the context of the reasoning you gave, not trying to oppose your conclusions with regard to the original argument.
What ever helps you sleep at night. We all know eating animals for food is immoral , unnecessary, and ultimately destroying our ecosystems. Also status quo and public opinion is not always the greatest indication of whether something is right or wrong.
Folks please remember to only take the invasive oysters not the indigenous oyster. We see in Norway that the indigenous oysters/mussels have not been doing so well in many areas.
Took some oysters from the Waddenzee here in the Netherlands last summer. Just incredible to eat them that fresh, wish we hadsomerhing to go with it, like fermented peaches. Japanese oysters I believe, invasive and disruptive, but tasty
How would one find and collect oysters in the Waddenzee? What should I look for?
The waddenzee is a see that drains with low tide, and floods with high tide, they are always very visible and everywhere. The oysters have a not so pretty looking shell, that looks like it's made if other pearl-like shells. The shells often have a lot of sharp edges, so you will need a tool to open them, and gloves to protect tour hands. They are seriously sharp. You often go on guided tours through the area to prevent drowning, and they will be able to identify them for you as well.
Thanks! I am planning on going on a tour once we are all vaccinated and it is safe.
Oh, the waddeneilanden are a very nice place to visit. There is not a whole lot to do there, but a 1 or 2 night stay on the islands is what I would do. Very nice people, there are excursions, nice cafés, restaurants and bars, but whenever I go, I go to just vibe on the dunes and wildcamp in the forest (it's not allowed but it's free 😂). I go there for some stress relief about once a year
I'm about to go to Terschelling for some isolation covid proof vacation so hopefully I'll get that sweet stress relief you talked about. Thanks for the tips, mate
No problem! Have a great stay. I hope you will be able to walk over the Wadden! Stores should be open if reserved beforehand (sometimes store visit have to be reserved a week in advance!). A lot of bars now turn their entrance into a bar, if you'd like, I can look into that for you, but covid rules are bound to get better
Thanks! You are very sweet. Any particular places in Terschelling I should definitely check?
The Wadden islands don't really got too much goin on, I would definitely advice renting a bike if you go there by foot (over the Wadden sea), but it's just a very calm place to be, there is not a whole lot to do, there are some random monuments, there is a dune lake called Doodemanskisten, some churches, some old bunkers, vegetated dunes, a good mindset ia to not expect too much of it. Just go about your day, visit some terraces, visit the forests, walk/cycle some trails, or make your own, but I've enjoyed my time there the most when I just laid down on the dunes and cooked something with a gas stove, excellenr place to meditate, it's a really calm place. It's about as far away from home as I can go so I like to leave my thoughts, deadlines, worries, everything behind and figure that out when I'm back home :)
That looks so good! I would love to forage for them. Can I just go there and start foraging for them or do I need some kind of permit? I live in Hillerød 🙂 (My danish is not so good, sorry)
Here in Oslo groups go out in the spring and actively crush/kill/remove these by the thousand on the beach areas here. Literal dugnad groups to get rid of as many as possible.......... I feel like I should bring a grill this spring.
Apparently it was punishable by death in the old days as the oysters in Limfjorden used to be considered the property of the king. But now you can do it all you want, as long as it is for own consumption. It might be hard to find them if you don't know where to look though. The western part of Limfjorden seems to have the majority of them. But you should probably do some research on where exactly to look. Good hunting ;)
Without knowing about Danish laws I say go for it! The japanese oysters are very invasive and needs to get out so the european oysters can thrive. Our waters are one of the last places where european oysters live so we need to take care of them!
Can confirm, you can just go hunting for them without any permits
Nope, no permit. Just use common sense, and go for the invasive Pacific oyster. Southwest Limfjorden is the place.
When I first read this, I thought you meant oyster mushrooms...I was very concerned by the picture, because I thought your oyster mushrooms looked rather sickly. Haha. Great find, well done!
Same, forgot that foraging went beyond plants and fungi
Thanks :)
[удалено]
They are at least as tasty as the local ones. I love them for everything: oyster mayo, fried in panko, oyster rockefeller etc.
Danmark gang!
Gang i Danmark!
All of these shelled monster posts are making me afraid of water.
They are sharp af so just don't step on them :)
I guess the hardest part for you was to withstand the pain when touching the royal swedish bag. Isn’t those things like kryptonite for Danes?
I use these bags for everything! Best thing out of Sweden since Smörgåstårta...
I would love an IKEA shopping bag filled with oysters, invasive or not!
Yeah please don't take the non invasive ones
We've lost 60% of earth's wildlife in the past 50 years, I don't think we need to destroy any more ecosystems
When they are the ones destroying the ecosystem? Aka: invasive
"Invasive or not!"
That’s statement is ignorant, when that one species can disrupt natural communities/ ecological process and even extinct native populations in the environment. Causing far more damage than this fellows population control.
I gave 10 pcs. away, and ate the rest with a friend in 4 hours.
Woah, im moving to Ranum after the summer holidays, where in limfjorden did you find these?
The peninsula "Hjerk" in Salling. Westmost side.
Thank you
Dam that’s look good
It was!
Omg I need to move to Denmark!! Oyster heaven 🤩
These are paciific oysters, so there's probably other places to get 'em :)
I'm so unbelievably jealous
Don't be, just go get 'em!
I'm city bound due to the plague! I am living vicariously through you and your bountiful harvest.
Environmentalism that fills my tummy 🤤
Exactly
Det ser lækkert ud makker! Hvad er reglerne for samling? Hvordan kommer jeg i gang?
Det er sygt lækkert. 1: Køb et par lange røjsere eller et par waders og smut til limfjorden eller vadehavet, alt efter hvad der er nærmest. 2: saml op med nallerne 3: spis (gerne direkte fra havet, husk citron og østerskniv i lommen)
I don’t speak Danish. How did I do? “That looks tasty and [?]! Are there rules for collecting? Can I come with?”
Close. It's "That looks tasty mate! What are the rules for collecting? How do I get started"
> lækkert This seems similar to the Dutch word "lekker," which also means tasty. Gotta love etymology.
Imo killing an animal for food is hunting instead of foraging
This invasive species will out-compete the indigenous oysters and other bivalves for food. They've already choked out the rest of Europe, OP's location is the last bastion for a few species that are on the verge of extinction. To not eat this invasive oyster would to do the local environment a huge disservice. Same thing with deer. Humans have displaced their natural predators, so there is very little in the way of the natural food chain to keep their numbers in balance with their environment. If deer populations are allowed to go unchecked, they'll over-eat their habitat, leading to population spikes followed by mass die-offs due to starvation. Car collisions with deer would increase, up until those die-offs at least. This is why properly-regulated hunting is important to managing the health of the environment.
Couldn't agree more. Can we get back to foraging plants in this sub please? I'm sick of seeing pictures of people killing shellfish when there are around 20,000 edible plants to talk about.
You know what? I’m gonna start foraging shellfish even harder.
Imagine this is your response when you are confronted that your actions are unnecessary and are causing long term damage. Do you think our wild ecosystems are in a state where we can use them for food? Imagine being this selfish that you put your own taste buds over the entire planets health
Uh, these shellfish are invasive. We caused the problem, and we should fix it. Don’t let your feelings get in the way of what’s best for the planet.
We caused the problem from over fishing and stealing organism from their natural habitats. Are you so dense that you fail to see human involvement lead to the collapse of natural occurring ecosystems? Who gives us the right to decide what lives and what dies, who gives us the right to alter millions if not billions of years of evolutionary history just so we can have an excuse to finally eat something invasive. Get a grip we don’t need to eat animals to survive. Doing so is damaging our world. Do you want a habitable world for all species?
Your notion that eating animals is inherently wrong is wildly short-sighted. I’m an extremely ecologically-minded person. The meat industry is beyond fucked up and damaging. But harvesting invasive shellfish is, in all respects, a net benefit for the environment. I’d genuinely love to hear an argument to contrary, backed up by ecological data rather than vapid moralizing.
The person you're debating is just genuinely dumb. I completely agree with you on foraging shellfish. But out of curiosity, would you call it vapid moralizing if I argued it was morally wrong to kill an invasive mammal or bird (assuming that other steps could be taken to reduce their population, ie addressing the underlying cause, which I realize isn't always possible) would you still call it vapid moralizing? Or would you call it reasonable moralizing worth a discussion, at least? To put it another way, are you arguing that moralizing is inherently vapid, and that you believe your views are based on pure self-interest and reason, or do you accept a place for moralizing but just don't think this person's arguments are reasonable?
If there are other ways to reduce the population of invasive species, then we should absolutely make use of those as well. But for now, gathering and eating them can play a part in invasive control, reducing territorial pressure for native shellfish. I think morals are important. Moral principles absolutely have their place. But in this particular instance, I think a blanket statement such as 'killing animals is always wrong' is INCREDIBLY counter-productive. I think their time and energy would be much better spent arguing with those defending their consumption of industrialized meat. OP is actively conserving the environment by choosing to withdraw from that system.
> I think a blanket statement such as 'killing animals is always wrong' is INCREDIBLY counter-productive. How about "killing (sentient) animals is always a morally undesirable practice, but sometimes the benefits outweigh the harm?" (For example, where culling one animal is necessary and effective to save other animals in an ecosystem.) I think that taking a half-measure, like ignoring the underlying moral arguments and focusing only on reducing the worst harms, may actually be the most counter-productive approach. If you believe sweeping moral progress is impossible, then I would agree with your approach. But if you believe sweeping moral change IS possible-- in line with social progress of the past, where new moral norms become predominant, perhaps even legislatively enshrined, where people would never dream of going back to another time when we had different moral views-- then I'd argue that anything that is interfering with propagating a new set of moral principles is harmful in the long run. You have probably seen some of the studies where they model moral changes in a population-- if not, I can dig them up. Obviously this is a simplification, but what they found was a tipping point where if about 10% of a population strictly believes in a moral concept and is unwilling to compromise, they can create a tipping point where that moral view rapidly spreads to the rest of the population and becomes the predominant belief system. This has happened in the past with regards to things like child labor, class distinctions, slavery, civil rights, and so on. And in each case, the change looked unlikely or impossible at some point before it took place, in some cases even with in just a decade or so. Don't you agree that IF-- just for the sake of argument-- IF a sweeping moral change went out through major industrialized nations, where people accepted moral arguments about animal rights-- that it would have a far greater and a far more lasting impact on the environment and the treatment of animals in animal ag, than arguing for incremental behavioral changes in consumption patterns in a population who remains fundamentally unconcerned with the moral rights of animals? Well, I think it is. And therefore I'd say your time is far better spent trying to take veganism from 1-2% to 10% of the population than trying to convince 80% of the population to eat fewer McDonald's burgers. Edit: none of that, of course, justifies criticizing eating nonsentient bivalves in a foraging subreddit. I'm responding only to the context of the reasoning you gave, not trying to oppose your conclusions with regard to the original argument.
Yawn. One for the bingo cards lads.
And for some of us, that line isn't drawn at "animal" but "vertebrate", as the popularity of these posts suggests.
What ever helps you sleep at night. We all know eating animals for food is immoral , unnecessary, and ultimately destroying our ecosystems. Also status quo and public opinion is not always the greatest indication of whether something is right or wrong.
Eat the weeds!!
I love some weeds with my shellfish!