Lobster was bountiful in early New England. It's become so again. Is this the result of good management, practiced in Maine better than anywhere else?
Or is it Global Warming... again?
According to a report released earlier this year from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) in Portland, while the lobster population has risen over 500% along Maine’s coast over the past 30 years, the population is expected to drop by between 40% and 62% by 2050.
Once again, the alarmists reinterpret *everything* to be part of the narrative. Once again, history is ignored in favor of future predictions by the leftist crystal ball.
Lobsters were so abundant in the early days—residents in the Massachusetts Bay Colony found they washed up on the beach in two-foot-high piles—that people thought of them as trash food. It was fit only for the poor and served to servants or prisoners. In 1622, the governor of Plymouth Plantation, William Bradford, was embarrassed to admit to newly arrived colonists that the only food they "could presente their friends with was a lobster ... without bread or anyhting else but a cupp of fair water" (original spelling preserved).
In 1622, we were in the midst of the Little Ice Age... hardly Global Warming. So how do these fools figure that *warm* water means more lobsters? I thought it was rich *cold* waters that were supposed to be more productive?