Saving Seafood

Opinion

Alaska’s maritime economy works because we invest in people, not just projects

May 8, 2026 — Reid Williams, a second-generation fisherman from Cordova, grew up in a fishing family and began working as a teenager. After graduating in 2019, he leased a vessel and permit while working to build something of his own. With support from the state’s Commercial Fishing Loan Program, he was able to purchase his first boat and permit, a step toward long-term ownership that would have been impossible to achieve through traditional financing.

In the years since, Williams has continued to reinvest in his business. Now operating a larger vessel, he has expanded his capacity across multiple fisheries.
His story reflects both opportunity and reality. For young Alaskans who want to stay in their communities and build a life on the water, access to that first opportunity remains one of the most significant barriers.
The backbone of coastal Alaska
From Metlakatla to Unalaska, maritime industries are not just part of our economy, they are the economy. Commercial fishing, mariculture, charter fishing, vessel repair, seafood processing, research and marine transportation support thousands of jobs and sustain communities that depend on the working waterfront.
For more than 50 years, Alaska’s Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development has made a deliberate choice: when traditional financing falls short in seasonal, high-risk, or rural industries, the state does not replace the private sector, it partners with it through its Division of Investments’ nine revolving loan programs.
Since its creation in 1972, the Commercial Fishing Loan Program has issued more than 9,300 loans totaling over $641 million, supporting more than 20,000 jobs.

Congressional investment in science essential to protect our ocean

March 4, 2026 — Deborah Bronk is the president and CEO of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in East Boothbay. Glenn Prickett is president and CEO of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute in Portland. Other organizations in the MOVE coalition include Hurricane Island Center for Science and Leadership, Maine Aquaculture Association, Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association, Maine Coast Heritage Trust, Island Institute, Herring Gut Coastal Science Center, and The Ocean Foundation.

Federal science funding affects Maine in concrete ways. It supports conservation of valuable ecosystems in Wells, aids ground fishermen in Portland in managing stocks, helps an aquaculture farm in Brunswick reduce noise and air pollution, and gives towns like Machias the information they need to plan for storms and flooding. Those activities — and countless others like them — support jobs, local businesses, and economic stability across the state.

In Maine, science funding is closely tied to industries that depend on the marine environment. Fisheries, aquaculture, marine technology, tourism, recreation, and coastal planning all rely on consistent, authoritative data, applied research, and a skilled workforce. These are the same blue economy sectors Maine has identified as key to long-term growth, and, together, they are helping build a strong ocean-based economy while supporting education, workforce development, and planning needs that benefit the whole state.

Read the full article at Bangor Daily News

BEN LANDRY: Call to shut down menhaden fishery is unwarranted

March 2, 2026 – The following is an opinion piece by Ben Landry, vice president of public affairs for Ocean Fleet Services, the parent company of Ocean Harvesters, originally published in the Baltimore Sun:

On Feb. 16, The Baltimore Sun published an editorial urging a moratorium on menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay (Virginia and Maryland have a small fish problem). Unfortunately, the piece contains errors and misleading claims that strongly suggest it was not independently researched, but instead repackaged long-running advocacy talking points from groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

Before endorsing what would amount to a shutdown of a historic fishery — and the hundreds of working waterfront jobs it supports — the editorial board owes readers something more than recycled press- release advocacy. Did the board reach out to Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission scientists or Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) biologists? Did it review the current stock status findings that explicitly state Atlantic menhaden are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring? Did it consider that the fishery is certified as sustainable under the Marine Stewardship Council program?

Several claims in the editorial need correction.

First, the editorial asserts a “reduction in the menhaden population” and suggests there is “too much evidence of overfishing.” That is demonstrably false. Marylandʼs own DNR juvenile striped bass survey reported last year that Atlantic menhaden were “widespread” in the Chesapeake Bay for the third consecutive year, with recent survey results among the strongest in decades.

ASMFCʼs benchmark findings are clear: Menhaden are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. And the fishery is MSC-certified for sustainability. Even last summerʼs menhaden die-offs — events The Sun itself has covered — underscore that there are significant menhaden concentrations in Maryland waters.

Second, the editorial claims that “more dead osprey chicks” are “starving from the reduction in the menhaden population,” and the photo caption amplifies an even stronger assertion: that Virginia “allows the killing of millions of this oily fish causing widespread osprey chick starvation” in tidal bay areas. That allegation is not based on science. Researchers have repeatedly cautioned against treating menhaden as a singular explanation for osprey outcomes. A 2024 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) presentation to the ASMFC and in a letter to Congress described osprey challenges as complex and multi-factor, noting a large long-term increase in the bayʼs osprey population before recent leveling. USGS has also made clear that osprey reproduction challenges are occurring in many places around the country — not uniquely tied to any one prey species, let alone one fishery.

Third, the editorial says striped bass “are in collapse” because the Chesapeake is a primary nursery. Striped bass are indeed struggling, and Maryland DNRʼs Young-of-Year Striped Bass Survey has documented below-average spawning success for the seventh consecutive year. But the editorial fails to acknowledge what ASMFC has documented about why striped bass are declining: The primary drivers are recreational overfishing (for much of the past decade), environmental conditions and disease — not menhaden harvest levels. The editorial also ignores that, until very recently, ASMFC found the recreational fishery overharvested striped bass for years; only recently has overfishing ended, while the stock remains overfished.

Fourth, the editorial proposes a moratorium “while a federally funded study takes place.” More science is always welcome, but “pause everything until science is finalized” is not how fisheries are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens framework or the interstate system that governs menhaden. Menhaden management already occurs through a formal, transparent ASMFC process. And there is already bay-focused scientific work underway: The National Science Foundation-affiliated Science Center for Marine Fisheries has funded a Chesapeake Bay menhaden research roadmap led by scientists from UMCES, VIMS and NOAA to inform any bay-specific cap with defensible science. A shutdown now — despite a healthy coastwide stock and clear findings that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring — would be an unnecessary and economically reckless “solution” looking for a problem.

Fifth, the editorial suggests the fishery can simply shift harvest elsewhere — “in Atlantic Ocean coastal waters … and in the Gulf of Mexico” — as if the bay closure would be painless. Weather conditions and migrations require access to the fish where they are and when they can be caught. That argument betrays a lack of understanding of fishing reality and is callous because it ignores the concentrated workforce and supply chain centered on Reedville, Virginia, and the Northern Neck — jobs with real wages, real benefits and real union protections that are not replaceable in those communities. A forced closure would hit working families first.

Finally, the editorial repeatedly misidentifies the company that harvests fish — another sign that basic research was not done. Omega Protein has not harvested for eight years. Since 2018, it has been a processor that manufactures products such as fish meal and fish oil from menhaden obtained from two sources. Most of the menhaden purchased by Omega Protein is caught by Ocean Harvesters, a majority-U.S.-owned fishing company employing U.S. captains and union fishermen — members of UFCW Local 400 — many from multi-generational fishing families, including minority fishermen. In addition, Omega Protein purchases from menhaden bait fishermen when market conditions are such that supply outstrips demand. If The Sun is going to editorialize about shutting down a fishery and disrupting a regional blue-collar economy, it should at least get the names and roles of the companies involved correct.

The Chesapeake Bay deserves thoughtful, science- based management — not policy-by-editorial fueled by activist narratives. The Sun should correct the record, engage directly with ASMFC and Maryland DNR scientists and treat working waterfront communities with the seriousness and respect they deserve.

Peter Navarro: Trump lifts Biden’s fish ban to lower your grocery bill

February 23, 2026 — Inflation isn’t an abstraction. It’s the monthly bills piling up — and whether a family can pay the mortgage, fuel the car, and put food on the table. That is why President Donald Trump is attacking Joe Biden’s legacy inflation sector by sector, product by product — and, as his latest executive action shows, fish by fish.

With this action, President Trump is reopening 5,000 square miles of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument to commercial fishing. These productive waters were first fenced off by Barack Obama in 2016 and, after Trump reopened them in 2020, Biden shut them right back down in 2021.

Obama’s 2016 commercial fishing ban came wrapped in lofty rhetoric about preservation. But for working waterfronts, it was a gut punch and a shutdown.

When President Trump lifted that ban, I was at the signing ceremony in Bangor, Maine. That Trump signature meant boats would once again sail, crews could fish and earn, processors could buy American catch, and — yes — American consumers could eat some of the freshest fish on the market.

Then came the Biden reversal in October 2021. My heart broke when I read the news — because policy whiplash is not an academic exercise. Fishermen live by the tides, not a think-tank memo. And it’s not just the fishermen that get hurt. It’s welders, dockhands, icehouses, bait dealers, truckers and an entire waterfront ecosystem.

When federal policy strangles opportunity, there is no backup plan, no second labor market to absorb the shock. The boats stop sailing, the paychecks stop coming, the damage is immediate.

Read the full article at Peter Navarro

American seafood is national security — and Washington is failing fishermen

February 10, 2026 — I have spent my life working on the water as a commercial fisherman. Today, I serve as the chairman and chief strategist of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association, (NEFSA) representing fishermen who fish the waters of the North Atlantic and the New York Bight, along with their families, business and industry associations and members of the public who support wild-caught American seafood. I speak for people who work these waters every day and for communities that depend on them.

We see ocean conditions as they exist, not months later in reports. Yet policy too often prioritizes theory over experience and paperwork over outcomes. Commercial fishermen are not line items. We live with the consequences of every decision made in Washington. On the water, those decisions can make fishing less safe, manage fish poorly and drive American commercial fishermen out of business.

AMERICAN SEAFOOD IS AMERICAN FOOD SECURITY

n 2026, it is time to clearly recognize that U.S. wild-caught seafood is U.S. food security. America controls one of the largest and most productive ocean food resources in the world, and commercial fishermen make it possible to feed this country under some of the highest standards anywhere.

At the same time, we are forced to compete against cheap imported seafood flooding U.S. markets and undercutting American harvesters. Much of this product comes from overseas operations with weak or nonexistent environmental and labor standards, yet it is marketed as fresh or sustainable. Meanwhile, American fishermen following the rules are slowly being pushed out.

American farmers know this problem well. Domestic food producers who follow strict regulations are routinely undercut by imports that do not. Commercial fishermen, like farmers, are a pillar of national resilience. Any new food policy must rebuild and protect domestic seafood production, so American fishermen can feed American consumers under American standards.

Read the full article at Fox News

Op-ed: A momentous US Supreme Court decision

January 7, 2026 — When I was an economics major in the late 1960s, I was taught that tariffs, as well as non-tariff barriers, should be avoided as a burden on trade and a tax on the populace. However, because the world has not accepted that teaching and tariffs have become a major defensive tool for advancing the Trump administration’s policy objectives, the conventional wisdom should be reconsidered.

Today, there are over 180 nation-states trying to be competitive on the world markets for goods and services, 35 percent of which are represented by the United States. Consequently, access to our markets is extremely important. U.S. tariffs provide critical, indispensable leverage against unfair foreign trade practices, including tariffs and nontariff barriers to our exports, and unfair penetration of our markets to the detriment of domestic production and jobs. Lessons can be drawn from trade experiences with two of America’s closest allies: Japan and Canada.

Japan, over the last 40 months, has devalued its currency against the U.S. dollar by 50%, from 105 to 155 yen to the dollar. This means that Japan has effectively established the equivalent of a 50% tariff on all international imports.

Read the full article at National Fisherman

Environmental groups’ excessive court challenges are about raising funds, not protecting fisheries

January 2, 2025 — When you think of environmental groups working to protect iconic wildlife the mind’s eye often provides a romantic setting with activists defending dolphins on the high seas.

In reality, the bulk of that work is done in places like Charlotte, where millions of dollars are raised in boardrooms with those very images as the centerpiece. The story behind the story is that such campaigns may be much more about money than marine mammals.

In 2024 the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups sued the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), forcing the government to implement a portion of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA.) Now they have rushed back to the court that oversaw their original settlement, ostensibly to complain about separate MMPA litigation.

Having pressured NOAA, after more than a decade of delays, into applying the protective policy, they now object to a different court settlement that allows a small handful of crab fisheries in four countries an additional 180 days to come into compliance with the rule.

Read the full article at the Charlotte Observer

 

Addressing consumer concerns about microplastics in seafood

December 26, 2025 — As the issue of microplastics and their potential negative health effects gains significant traction in both scientific literature and media coverage, consumers are becoming increasingly cautious about their food sources.

Research suggests that microscopic plastic particles are near ubiquitous and virtually unavoidable, but special attention has been paid to their presence in seafood.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

NY fishermen say horseshoe crab management is working

October 14, 2025 — Some ideas sound noble in theory but collapse under the weight of the facts. That’s the case with New York State Assembly Bill 4997 and Senate Bill 4289, legislation that would ban the harvest and sale of horseshoe crabs by New York’s licensed commercial fishermen

Proponents call it “protection.” In reality, it’s an unnecessary ban that would wipe out livelihoods, damage sustainable local fisheries, and ignore the very science-based efforts that state and federal regulators have built together.

Gov. Kathy Hochul understood that last year when she vetoed the same bill. At a time when some were pushing hard for an outright ban, she stood instead with science, with regulators, and with the men and women who make their living on the water. For that, New York’s fishing families are deeply grateful, and hopeful that she will again make the tough but right decision.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

DO WE REALLY WANT POLITICIANS TO MANAGE OUR FISHERIES?

September 26, 2025 — Many years ago, all fish were managed by politicians.  The basic rule was that you could catch whatever you wanted, in whatever numbers that you wanted, of whatever size that you wanted, and you could do what you wanted with the fish—eat them, sell them, give them away, feed them to the tomatoes, or dump them back in the bay—because no law said otherwise.

Sometimes, someone would start to worry that a stock of fish wasn’t doing too well, or decided that some sort of net was killing too many fish (or, perhaps, interfering with another sort of net), or maybe one group of people decided that another group of people were killing fish that the first group wanted for themselves.  Whatever the issue, and whoever the concerned group might be, the only way to change the status quo was to go to the state (or very, very rarely federal) legislature, and convince the politicians to pass a law imposing a bag limit and/or a minimum size, or outlawing a particular gear, or to have a species declared a “gamefish” so that commercial fishermen couldn’t kill any of them anymore, and anglers could kill all of them instead.

It was a difficult, time-consuming process, and the results often weren’t very good, because laws were too often passed based on emotion, or because a particular group of fishermen wanted all of the fish for themselves, rather than being based on sound science and a coherent fisheries management policy.

Even the legislators eventually recognized that, although they held the ultimate management authority, they generally didn’t know all that much about fish, and both the public and the resource were usually better off if they delegated management authority to fisheries professionals who had the expertise needed to conserve and manage fish stocks.

That didn’t mean that the politicians were completely out of the picture—they still could legislate management measures if they wanted to—but it did mean that fisheries management measures were generally based on something more than largely uninformed opinion, and that any regulations that were put in place had to be based on facts, and were not merely “arbitrary and capricious” actions based on some people’s whim.

For the most part, and for most people, the administrative approach to fisheries management works a lot better than the legislative one, but for those who are trying to do something that’s a little outside the mainstream, and maybe unsupported by any sort of data or objective facts, management by politician rather than by professional fisheries experts is still the preferred way to go.

One of the latest examples of that is a proposed executiveorder that’s being shopped around the White House, largely by a coalition of anglingorganizations which want to shut down the menhaden reduction fishery but,perhaps due to the input of some environmental organizations, is also seekingto sharply restrict that harvest of some forage fish, and so, in one broadaction, would harshly regulate, and in some cases shut down, fisheries foreverything from menhaden off Louisiana to squid off New England.

Read the full article at ONE ANGLER’S VOYAGE