Whale Protections Need Not Cause Lobstering Losses

Right whales, other whales and turtles get caught in lobster trap lines, but fewer lines can maintain the same lobster catch levels.

Lobster traps in Hull, Mass., on February 2020.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

There’s a lot of cash crawling on the seafloor. American lobsters bring in more money than any other U.S. fishery—a record $670 million in 2016, mostly through Maine and Massachusetts.

The fishery relies on traditional lobster harvest techniques: a series of traps are dropped to the ocean floor with a long rope attached to a floating buoy.

“During peak fishing season, there’s over 900,000 vertical lines right in the middle of right whale habitat.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Graduate student Hannah Myers from the University of Alaska Fairbanks College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences.

Those vertical lines entangle and kill endangered sea turtles and multiple whale species—including the North Atlantic right whales. Only about 400 individuals remain. And recent analyses show that the species won’t survive if humans kill an average of just one whale each year. Some estimates indicate that lobstering gear kills more than three whales each year on average.

“Management problems surrounding the North Atlantic right whale and entanglements are pretty significant and have been really challenging to move forward. And a large part of that is due to expected negative impacts on the lobster fishery.”

But right whale protections don’t have to mean lobster losses. Canada’s lobster harvest operates with fewer traps and a shorter, six-month-long season.

“The U.S. lobster fishery in Maine expends approximately 7.5 times as much as the Canadian fishery to catch the same amount. And Canadians are catching almost four times more lobsters per trap.”

They’re putting less effort into it and spending less on fuel and equipment. But they’re still gathering nearly the same amount of lobster overall. And there are stateside examples.

“In Massachusetts, areas that have had a seasonal closure in recent years have reached record-high landings.”

The study was published in the journal Marine Policy. [Hannah J. Myers and Michael J. Moore, Reducing effort in the U.S. American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery to prevent North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) entanglements may support higher profits and long-term sustainability]

Restrictions could actually mean a healthier lobster population overall.

“It’s paradoxical, but it is consistent with a lot of fisheries research that shows that when you fish with too much effort, too many traps in the water, then the stock itself isn’t as robust. So one thing we might expect is you would have more or larger lobsters (if there are fewer traps in the water) coming in to each trap. And therefore you would be able to haul up more lobster per trap. And that’s kind of what we see on the Canadian side.”

Taking some of those ropes out of the water could benefit both the whales and the fishermen.

“Our main takeaway is that a negative economic impact should be not assumed with effort reduction in the U.S. lobster fishery.”

—Jason G. Goldman

 [The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Jason G. Goldman is a science journalist based in Los Angeles. He has written about animal behavior, wildlife biology, conservation, and ecology for Scientific American, Los Angeles magazine, the Washington Post, the Guardian, the BBC, Conservation magazine, and elsewhere. He contributes to Scientific American's "60-Second Science" podcast, and is co-editor of Science Blogging: The Essential Guide (Yale University Press). He enjoys sharing his wildlife knowledge on television and on the radio, and often speaks to the public about wildlife and science communication.

More by Jason G. Goldman

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe