BIOLOGISTS WHO monitor fisheries in the Atlantic are getting ahead of themselves with a recommendation to impose a five-year ban on lobster fishing south of Cape Cod down to Virginia. There should be ways to protect the stock while still allowing for some commercial activity.
Lobster stocks in southern New England are down by more than half from their peak of 35 million a decade ago. This isn’t a mere fluctuation in an industry known for its ups and downs. The consensus of both scientists and fishermen is that warmer water, possibly the effect of climate change, is the chief culprit. Predators might also play a role. But the bottom line is that stressed lobsters are leaving inshore waters for deeper, cooler water offshore. And scientists from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, a multi-state governmental body, don’t want the lobsters pursued — even though there’s no guarantee that a moratorium will result in a significant rebound of the stock.
Overfishing didn’t cause this problem, and fishermen shouldn’t bear the full weight. New England lobstermen enjoy an excellent record as environmental stewards, as evidenced by the healthy stocks in the Gulf of Maine and on Georges Bank. They are willing to meet the scientists halfway, which is exactly what needs to be done. If the stock has dropped by half, then there should be a commensurate shortening of the fishing season, lower allowable catch, or trap reductions. It’s not fair or necessary to put lobster boats out of business entirely when such alternatives are available.
Lobster boats are also the key to effective monitoring. Scientists who serve as observers on the fleet gain a consistent understanding of the size and health of the stock. A moratorium would require scientific observers either to charter their own boats or find news ways of monitoring the species — expensive propositions. Members of the commission’s American Lobster Management Board should consider both intended and unintended consequences of a ban when they deliberate in July.
Lobstermen are optimists. How else would they leave tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear on the ocean floor? Biologists are pessimistic by comparison. Somewhere between the two is a practical resolution.
