Two decades ago, the future of the Southern New England lobster stock, which ranges from Cape Cod south to Virginia or so, began to look bleak. As early as 2006, a stock assessment noted that “stock abundance is relatively low compared to the 20-year time series and fishing mortality is relatively high; further restrictions are warranted. The [stock assessment] Panel believes the declining trend in population abundance is well established and warrants a reduction in fishing mortality.”
The stock assessment went on to advise that “The Panel recognizes that it would only take a sequence of two to three years of poor recruitment to collapse any component of the lobster resource, and the appearance of extremely low recruitment in recent times in some areas is a cause for concern if not alarm.”
Lobster fishermen did not embrace the stock assessment’s recommendations. Instead of acknowledging the need to reduce landings, the fishermen sought to blame the decline in lobster numbers on natural mortality rather than fishing. A 2006 report from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) American Lobster Advisory Panel (Advisory Panel) noted that Advisory Panel members were “concerned that the stock assessment did not take into account the increases in natural mortality…[Advisory Panel] members were also concerned that the assessment does not take into account predation of lobsters by striped bass, cod, and dogfish…”
In time, a pattern emerged. Stock assessments would make ominous warnings. Fishermen would ignore them.
In 2009, a benchmark stock assessment advised that “Current abundance of the [Southern New England] stock is the lowest observed since the 1980s…Recruitment has remained low in [Southern New England] since 1998. Given current low levels of spawning stock biomass and poor recruitment further restrictions are warranted.” Shortly thereafter, the ASMFC’s American Lobster Technical Committee (Technical Committee) opined that the Southern New England stock “will need a rebuilding strategy to attempt to regain its former recruitment productivity.”
In 2010, the Technical Committee went a step further, issuing a report titled, “Recruitment Failure in The Southern New England Lobster Stock,” which asserted that the stock was “critically depleted” and “experiencing recruitment failure,” and that “it is this recruitment failure in the [the Southern New England stock] that is preventing the stock from rebuilding.”
The report suggested “that the distribution of spawning females has shifted away from inshore [Southern New England stock] areas into deeper water in recent years. This shift may impact larval supply to inshore nursery grounds.” It cited a warming ocean as the primary reason for the shift of females to deeper waters, and noted that “continued fishing pressure reduces the stock’s potential to rebuild, even though overfishing is currently not occurring.” Because the problem was so severe, the Technical Committee recommended that a 5-year moratorium be imposed on the Southern New England lobster fishery.
In doing so, it acknowledged “the severity of this recommendation and understands the catastrophic effects on the fishery participants, support industries, and coastal communities.” But it also stated that “This recommendation provides the maximum likelihood to rebuild the stock in the foreseeable future to an abundance level that can support a sustainable long-term fishery.”
As one might expect, the lobster fishermen rejected the findings of the Technical Committee’s report.
At the May 2010 meeting of the ASMFC’s American Lobster Management Board (Management Board), William McElroy, a lobster fisherman from Rhode Island, argued that “if you chose a five-year fishery moratorium to keep the fishery from collapsing, you’ve kind of jumped the shark and guaranteed that the fishery collapses without ever giving the opportunity to collapse, because there would be no fishery left after five years. There would be no infrastructure.”
The Management Board, wanting to fully explore the issue, called a special meeting for July 2010, where Joseph Horvath, a lobster fisherman from New Jersey, challenged the Technical Committee’s findings, arguing that “I don’t know how we all got painted into this picture of doom and gloom…I’ve been fishing for 40 years…I don’t see any crash of any fishery. We’re doing well. We had a good recruitment…Our lobsters that we catch, we’re doing fine. We have plenty of recruitment…”
Steven Smith, a Rhode Island lobster fisherman, also disagreed with the Technical Committee, saying “The area I’m fishing right now, there is a large recruitment of lobsters,” while Connecticut lobster fisherman Bart Mansey asserted that “What we have now, there is no disaster. The board is making a disaster…We’re witnessing and catch more lobsters…We’re actually catching more and seeing more lobsters.”
In response to such sentiments, the Management Board delayed taking any action that would reduce landings of Southern New England lobster, much less impose a moratorium on the fishery. In the end, rather than place any cap on lobster harvest, the Management Board decided to try to reduce fishing effort enough to achieve a 10 percent reduction in landings. By that time, the Technical Committee’s recommended moratorium had long been forgotten.
The most recent stock assessment found that nothing had changed, advising that “The [Southern New England] stock is in poor condition…The assessment recommends significant management action to provide the best chance of stabilizing or improving abundance and reproductive capacity of the [Southern New England] stock.”
Whether such action will ever be taken remains to be seen for, even though management inaction may have doomed the Southern New England lobster stock, there is no assurance that fishery managers will change their ways and finally act to address a lobster stock collapse, whether it occurs in southern New England or elsewhere along the coast.
Top image by strator_zy from Pixabay
