The End of Lobster Rolls?

Put up your dukes: lobsters are one scrappy sea creature. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bugre_americanu.jpg">Roberto Rodríguez</a>/Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


When European settlers alighted upon what’s now known as New England, they gaped at the bounty of the shoreline, reports William Cronon in his classic 1983 book Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. Cronon lays out contemporary accounts of coastal waters teeming with cod, streams thick with salmon, of oysters “almost a foot long.”

Lobster barely registers in Cronon’s survey of this almost mythically productive ecosystem, but it existed in abundance, unloved as food but exploited all the same. Native Americans used it as farm fertilizer and fishing bait, the Gulf of Maine Research Institute reports, and it emerged as a kind of trash food for the colonialists, who “served it to children, to prisoners, and to indentured servants.”

Lobster’s rise from culinary afterthought to white tablecloth delicacy has become almost the stuff of cliché. For years, overharvesting led to falling catches and high prices—seeming to ensure lobster’s high-falutin’ status.

But something odd has been brewing off the coast of Maine for more than a decade. Despite fears of an imminent collapse, lobster landings have skyrocketed. As a Chronicle of Higher Education article put it back in 2001, “Scientists have warned that lobsters are in danger, but nobody bothered to tell the lobsters.”

Since then, the Gulf of Maine lobster fishery has only gotten more productive. “Maine lobstermen caught 123.3 million pounds of lobster during the 2012 season, which represents a 15 percent increase from 2011 and an 88 percent increase from landings two decades ago,” according to news site MaineBiz. The stuff has gotten so abundant, MaineBiz reports, that New England-area Walgreens are sprouting live lobster tanks. What gives?

As my colleagues Tim McDonnell and James West show, the Gulf of Maine’s teeming lobster population appears to be flourishing within a makeshift ecological niche created by two highly destructive human-induced forces: climate change and overfishing. The area’s fast-warming waters appear to make lobsters grow faster and reproduce more; and the great diversity of sealife enjoyed by the European settlers has largely vanished after centuries of heavy fishing pressure—and among the casualties are key lobster predators like cod.

As Taras Grescoe put it in his excellent 2008 book Bottomfeeder, “with top predators fished to a fraction of their former abundance, [the Atlantic] has become an ocean increasingly populated by shrimp, lobsters, crab, and other resilient, fast-growing crustaceans. An ocean, in other words, of bottomfeeders.”

In addition to the growth stimulation from warming waters, lobsters might be getting another boost from climate change: faster shell formation. As oceans absorbs excess carbon from the atmosphere, their acidity levels rise, and scientists have long hypothesized that acidification would harm coral reefs as well as all shell-forming sea creatures. But a 2009 study from Woods Hole Oceanic Institute researchers found that while acidic seawater caused the shells of the clams and oysters to dissolve, it actually improved shell formation for crustaceans like lobsters.

Even so, as McDonnell and West show, Maine lobsters’ unexpected abundance is leading to anxiety, not elation, among Maine’s lobstermen. Ever-expanding supply has caused prices to plunge, meaning they’re trapping more lobster than ever yet making less money.

Then there’s the specter of what happened a few hundred miles to the south in Long Island Sound, where the lobster harvest rose dramatically in the 1990s before plummeting just as rapidly—possibly because ocean temperatures there crossed a threshold above which lobsters can no longer thrive. As the Gulf of Maine’s waters continue warming, a similar fate could befall its lobster horde. In a fast-changing, unpredictable seascape, ecological niches can snap shut as quickly as they open. Grescoe laid out a a nightmare scenario in Bottomfeeder: “The lobster boom of the Atlantic …may be just a tiny blip on a slippery slope to oceans filled with jellyfish, bacteria, and slime.”

Yet lobsters are indisputably resilient creatures. In perhaps the least appetizing article in Gourmet Magazine‘s sumptuous history, David Foster Wallace trained a novelist’s cold eye on them. He pointed out that lobsters are “basically giant sea-insects” that “date to the Jurassic period.” Indeed, he continued, “they’re biologically so much older than mammalia that they might as well be from another planet.”

That means they have a long track record of surviving cataclysmic environmental change. And at any rate, we may as well enjoy them while we can. Here’s a vintage Julia Child video to remind us how to do just that.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate