Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

Atlantic Menhaden Board Votes Against Ecological Management Plan For Fishery

November 17, 2017 — The Atlantic Menhaden Board voted earlier this week to stick to the status quo when managing the menhaden fishery and made slight changes to the annual catch limit. However, Saving Seafood, a group that represents the commercial fishing industry, has mixed feelings about those changes.

Menhaden are a forage fish found across the Atlantic Coast. The Board was considering implementing a new ecological-based management plan that was designed for forage fish.

The plan would have required fishermen to leave enough fish in the water for it to replenish itself and enough for predators to eat. However, the board voted no for the plan because it’s not specifically designed for menhaden.

Bob Vanasse, executive director at Saving Seafood, said the group agrees with the board’s decision.

“I think this was a strong statement that moving forward science needs to prevail, data needs to prevail and we need to look at this complex system in its complexity and not try apply a rule of thumb in every circumstance,” Vanasse said.

The menhaden board also voted to increase the annual catch quota by eight percent.

Read the full story at WNPR

 

Political pressure affected quota decision, menhaden industry group charges

November 17, 2017 — A day after the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission voted to raise the catch limit on Atlantic menhaden by eight percent, a trade group claimed on Wednesday that the commission let political pressure affect not only that raise but how quotas were allocated across member states.

The commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board approved an amendment to raise the total catch limit to 216,000 metric tons. However, in doing so, it gave each member state a minimum share of 0.5 percent. While those shares seem small for states that do not have an active menhaden fishery, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition said it will have a significant impact on the two largest fisheries, Virginia and New Jersey.

Virginia received an allocation of 78.66 percent, while New Jersey got 10.87 percent. No other state received more than 1.27 percent of the allocation.

“The creation of a system allowing non-fishing states to ‘horse-trade’ allocation, the ‘taking’ of quota from some to give to others, and the arbitrary moving of quota from the marine ingredients fishery to the bait fishery constitute inappropriate intrusions into the market economy, our members say,” the coalition said in a press release issued late Wednesday afternoon.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource

 

ASMFC Approves Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden

November 15, 2017 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: 

Linthicum, MD – The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has approved Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Menhaden.  The Amendment maintains the management program’s current single-species biological reference points until the review and adoption of menhaden-specific ecological reference points as part of the 2019 benchmark stock assessment process. It also addresses a suite of commercial management measures including allocation, quota transfers, quota rollovers, incidental catch, the episodic events set aside program, and the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery cap.

In addition to its Amendment 3 deliberations, the Board set the total allowable catch for the 2018 and 2019 fishing seasons at 216,000 metric tons (mt) with the expectation that the setting of the TAC for subsequent years will be guided by menhaden-specific ecological reference points.

“Through adoption of Amendment 3 and the setting of the 2018 and 2019 TAC at a risk-averse level, the Board has demonstrated its continued commitment to manage the menhaden resource in a way that balances menhaden’s ecological role with the needs of its stakeholders,” stated Board Chair Robert Ballou of Rhode Island. “While the Amendment maintains the current reference points, the Board placed the development of menhaden-specific ecological reference points as its highest priority.  While the Board’s action was not supported by the majority of public comment received, it is still a conservative management action relative to our understanding of stock status and many of the positive signals we see in the current stock conditions. Specifically, the 2017 Stock Assessment Update indicated the resource remains healthy, with increases in abundance particularly in the norther states. Risks to the resource under our current reference points are well understood, while changes to the TAC under the general forage fish guidelines are not as well understood. Further, the approved TAC, which represents a modest 8% increase in the coastwide quota, has zero percent chance of subjecting the resource to overfishing or causing it to be overfished.”

Amendment 3 also changes fishery allocations in order to strike an improved balance between gear types and jurisdictions. The Amendment allocates a baseline quota of 0.5% to each jurisdiction, and then allocates the rest of the TAC based on historic landings between 2009 and 2011 (see table below). This measure provides fishing opportunities to states which currently have little quota while still recognizing historic landings in the fishery. The Board also agreed to maintain the quota transfer process, prohibit the rollover of unused quota, maintain the 6,000 lb trip limit for non-directed and small-scale gears following the closure of a directed fishery, and set aside 1% of the TAC for episodic events in the states of New York through Maine. “The Board worked collaboratively and effectively to forge an outcome that is fair and responsive to the needs and interest of all East Coast states” said Chair Ballou.

Table 1. Amendment 3 allocation percentages based on a 0.5% fixed minimum during the 2009-2011 timeframe.

State Allocations (%)
Maine 0.52%
New Hampshire 0.50%
Massachusetts 1.27%
Rhode Island 0.52%
Connecticut 0.52%
New York 0.69%
New Jersey 10.87%
Pennsylvania 0.50%
Delaware 0.51%
Maryland 1.89%
Potomac River Fisheries Commission 1.07%
Virginia 78.66%
North Carolina 0.96%
South Carolina 0.50%
Georgia 0.50%
Florida 0.52%
Total 100%

Finally, the Amendment reduces the Chesapeake Bay cap, which was first implemented in 2006 to limit the amount of reduction harvest within the Bay, to 51,000 mt from 87,216 mt. This recognizes the importance of the Chesapeake Bay as nursery grounds for many species by capping recent reduction landings from the Bay to current levels.

States must submit implementation plans to the Commission by January 1, 2018 for final implementation by April 15, 2018. The Amendment will be available on the Commission’s website, www.asmfc.org, by the end of November. For more information, please contact Megan Ware, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at mware@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.

To learn more about the ASMFC visit their site here.

 

Days Before High-Stakes Menhaden Vote, Questions and Uncertainties Abound

Amendment 3’s new Ecological Reference Points in Center of Controversy

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 10, 2017 — By Marisa Torrieri:

As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission prepares to vote on highly-contested benchmarks for managing menhaden next week, uncertainties about the potential ripple effect of new ecological reference points (ERPs) are fueling heated exchanges between environmental groups and fisheries.

On November 13 and 14, the Commission is expected to meet to vote on Amendment 3, which will establish management benchmarks, and consider ecological reference points for menhaden, a bony and oily forage fish that is a primary food source for bigger fish such as striped bass and humpback whales and is harvested commercially for oil and fertilizer. The Commission also plans to review and potentially update state-by-state quota allocations.

Should the commission vote for “Option E” under Amendment 3 — an approach largely favored by environmental groups — the ASMFC would establish interim ecological reference points that would set a target of 75 percent and a threshold of 40 percent of a theoretical unfished stock. The ASMFC’s Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup would continue to develop Menhaden Specific ERP.

Fishermen whose livelihoods depend on the fish say the impact of this option would be catastrophic to their business.

Jeff Kaelin, head of government relations for Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., in Cape May, N.J., said New Jersey would lose a lot of jobs and money, in the event that interim ERPs took effect.

“With Option E, if we fish at the target that the environmental community is advocating, we’ll have a 25 percent cut in the fishery we have today, and that’s significant,” says Kaelin. “In 2013, when the quotas were established … we lost access to 50 percent of the fish. This is worth about $2 million to the state of New Jersey if we take a 25 percent cut. That’s what would happen, and there’s no need for it because the science is so robust.”

Yet environmental groups have countered that Option E, if selected, would not trigger draconian changes — it would simply put new goals in place that would benefit everyone, which could be phased in based on an organization’s own time table.

“The ERP is the goal, what you’re trying to achieve,” said Joseph Gordon, a senior manager for Pew Charitable Trusts, who directs campaigns to conserve forage fish. “Option E doesn’t tell you how fast to get there and how much risk to take. If the Commission decides to move forward Option E, they will be opting to have a very high population [of menhaden] in the ocean. When we talk about Option E, the goal of that is to achieve and maintain a high biomass of fish in the ocean. That should support significant amounts of fishing in the case of menhaden, over time as the population grows. The benefits to everyone, including commercial fisheries, is the goal of management.”

Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation also suggested Option E isn’t as bad as fisheries are making it out to be.

“Option E would say ‘OK, we now have a new target … fisheries would need to make changes to ensure they’re hitting that target,” says Moore. “But it’s not ‘we shall do this, we shall do that.’ If you look at the last stock assessment, the last quota showed we’re increasing. There’s a lot of leeway for the managers to get to the target.”

Omega Protein Corporation, the largest participant in the menhaden fishery, is based in Reedville, Va., a state that is currently allocated 85 percent of the catch. It says comments from environmentalists in support of Option E sugarcoat the potential economic impact of the ERPs.

Omega Protein is in favor of the more conservative Option B, which keeps ERPs at the existing status quo levels, until better mathematical models for menhaden are available.

“To say that the current reference points are inadequate, and we want to change them, and then say, ‘we won’t mandate that the harvest be cut when over the target,’ that’s ludicrous,” says Monty Deihl, Vice President of Operations for Omega Protein. “The environmentalist solution is looking for a problem, and there is no problem! We only take 8 percent of the biomass per year. The current model says you could harvest 300,000 metric tons per year without overfishing. With Option E, there’s a 25 percent cut in the harvest.”

Shaun Gehan, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who represents Omega Protein, said that environmentalists promoting Option E as a “phased approach” — while the language within the Option calls for a clear cut in fishing activities — are hypocritical.

“The real issue is if one believes that menhaden should be at 75 percent un-fished levels and the target [fishing mortality] helps achieve that, then it is hypocritical to advocate for anything but a cut,” he says. “It seems there is a lot of folks that want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, being able to say, ‘ecological reference points’ are being used, while avoiding harvest reductions they entail because no one thinks cuts are warranted in light of menhaden’s abundance.”

THE ROAD TO AMENDMENT 3

One of the biggest arguments for clamping down on menhaden fishing, one which has resonated with the public, is that concerns about menhaden weren’t on anyone’s radar until recently, when reports warned that the supply was in danger.

According to Pew, people started to “wake up” to the menhaden issue after a coast-wide decline in menhaden in the 1990s through the early 2000s that attracted a lot of attention: This decline was noticed on the water up and down the coast by recreational fishermen. The effects of this decline on predator species, especially striped bass, were especially noticed, since striped bass is a prized recreational fish – and the reason the ASMFC was created in the first place.

“Striped bass had been recovering from depletion, and many were interested and invested in this recovery,” Gordon noted. “But anglers were seeing signs of starvation and disease in striped bass, and it didn’t take long to trace many of the problems to the absence of adequate prey (menhaden) for them. That’s what led to the first cap on menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay, in 2005.”

In 2012, with support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University convened the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, a panel of 13 marine and fisheries scientists from around the world, to offer science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems. In their report, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” researchers concluded fisheries managers “need to pay more careful attention to the special vulnerabilities of forage fish and the cascading effects of forage fishing on predators.”

Since then, ASMFC staff, scientists, and advisors have been developing and reviewing a range of ecological models and management strategies. In 2012, the ASMFC voted in favor of Amendment 2, which set a new coast-wide catch limit. In May of 2015, the ASMFC began drafting Amendment 3 to the menhaden management plan, with the goal of establishing ecological management, and to review and possibly update state-by-state quota allocations.

“What’s amazing to watch over time, and I’ve worked on this for about a decade, is we’ve gone from a situation where we didn’t have any coast-wide limit at all to a question of when it’s going to happen,” says Gordon.

CONSIDERING SCIENCE

The outcome of the vote on Amendment 3 is expected to have a powerful impact on the future of menhaden, as well as recreational anglers, tourism, conservationists and larger fisheries. Yet with so much on the line, figuring out the right path isn’t so clear cut.

For one, scientists and researchers who study menhaden are at odds with each other, some saying we are at a critical juncture and must make drastic moves to manage and protect menhaden, and others dismissing such reports as hysteria.

In a Q&A with Pew Charitable Trusts, Ellen Pikitch, a marine biology professor and director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, said the state of menhaden appears to be in decent shape if you examine the population in isolation.

“But when you look at it from an ecosystem perspective—whether there are enough to feed predators—menhaden are much less numerous than they ought to be,” she said. “On the East Coast, menhaden used to range from Nova Scotia to Florida, but we haven’t seen that kind of distribution for probably 50 years.”

Pikitch led a group of more than 100 scientists who commented on the proposed Amendment 3 ERPs, and is pushing for the implementation of Option E.

But at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on October 24, fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”

Dr. Hilborn’s comments came in response to questioning from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about whether fisheries managers should manage forage fish according to a “rule of thumb” approach, where fisheries are managed according to a set of broad ecological and management principals, or a “case-by-case” approach, where management is guided by more species-specific information.

Hilborn, who was part of a team of fisheries scientists that recently examined the effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species, has expressed concern that the 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.

John Bull, commissioner for Virginia Marine Resources Commission, believes the latter. And while he’s heard environmental groups are trying to make Option E seem more palatable by saying it will result in “phased implementation,” he does not support the establishment of interim ERPs because it “doesn’t make sense, scientifically.”

“The science shows from a benchmark stock assessment a couple years ago that the stock is healthy, robust, and reproduction is good,” said Bull. “And in fact, a 30 percent increase on menhaden could be enacted with a 0 percent chance of overfishing. What Virginia would like to see is an increase in the quota on the East Coast of 5, 6, 7 percent.”

Marisa Torrieri is a freelance writer who lives in Fairfield, Connecticut, with her husband and two young sons. She possesses a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University, and has written and edited for dozens of publications, including the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, and the Village Voice.

ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Management Board to Meet November 14 to Consider Approval of Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan

April 5, 2017 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board will meet on November 14, 2017 (all day) to consider approval of Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. The Commission’s Business Session will meet immediately following the conclusion of the Atlantic Menhaden Board meeting to consider final approval of Amendment 3. The meeting will take place in the Washington, DC/Baltimore, MD area. Additional details will be released well in advance of the meeting.

Recent Headlines

  • New federal red snapper regulations could allow bigger limits for some states, smaller for others
  • Sharing the Tools of Sustainable Fishery Management
  • MASSAHCUSETTS: Head of NOAA Fisheries visits New Bedford, impact of offshore wind development on fishing a concern
  • The Inflation Reduction Act Offers Hope for Fishery Friendly Climate Action
  • ASMFC 2022 Summer Meeting Press Release, Summaries, and Motions Now Available
  • Below-average Gulf of Mexico ‘dead zone’ measured
  • MAINE: Finfish aquaculture ordinance drafted
  • Proposed federal speed rule for vessels could further protect endangered right whales

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon Scallops South Atlantic Tuna Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2022 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions