Should Lobster Fishing Be Banned?

by Sarah Parsons · 2010-06-11 16:30:00 UTC

South of Cape Cod, lobster populations are in hot water: The struggling crustaceans' numbers have dropped from 35 million a decade ago to a mere 15 million today.

To help remedy the situation, scientists want to keep the crustaceans in the ocean and out of lobster pots. According to the Boston Globe, biologists recently recommended a five-year ban on catching lobsters located south of Cape Cod and down through the waters of Virginia. Researchers say that without the fishing ban, one of New England's three populations of lobsters could be seriously compromised, if not wiped out entirely.

The ban would apply only to lobsters located south of Cape Cod. America's two other New England lobster populations—those in the Gulf of Maine and those found in Georges Bank—are still healthy.

It's unclear why, exactly, southern New England lobsters are faring so poorly while other populations remain healthy. Scientists think that warming waters caused by climate change may leave lobsters vulnerable to disease. This kills some lobsters off and pushes others to scurry away to deeper, colder waters.

Lobstermen are naturally furious about the proposed ban, but researchers say it's the only way to give southern New England lobsters a fighting chance. And if the plights of other marine-dwelling creatures are any indication, I'd have to say I agree with the scientists. Just look at how populations of bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks have plummeted in recent years. Even though many environmental groups continue to call for it, fishing bans on these species still haven't been put in place. Therefore population numbers continue to dwindle. Even though southern New England lobsters' low numbers may not be due to overfishing, it's clear that we need to stop eating them in order to help the species get healthy and rebound.

Especially when it comes to seafood, consumers really have an opportunity to help control the health of our oceans by controlling what they put on their plates. We don't need to eat southern New England lobsters—there are plenty of other types of fish in the sea. And believe me, sustainable fish like Pacific halibut and Pacific cod taste just as delicious with drawn butter.

Biologists' proposed five-year lobster ban will be voted on by the American Lobster Management Board on July 22nd. Here's hoping the board rules in favor of letting the struggling lobsters be for a few years.

Photo credit: Hartmut Inerle via Wikimedia Commons

Sarah Parsons is Change.org's Sustainable Food Editor. Her work has appeared in Popular Science, OnEarth, Audubon and Plenty.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Can Sugar-Packed Milks Be Considered "Healthy"?
NEXT STORY:
Join the Social Media Day of Action to Rid Girl Scout Cookies of Forest-Destroying Palm Oil

COMMENTS (4)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.