Saving Seafood

New analysis: No, scientists didn’t “recommend” a 54% menhaden cut

December 3, 2025 —  The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

In the weeks since the 2025 ASMFC Annual Meeting, there’s been a widespread misconception circulated by environmental and recreational fishing groups that the ASMFC Menhaden Board’s technical and scientific advisors “recommended” a 50% or 54% cut (to 108,450 mt) to the Atlantic menhaden total allowable catch (TAC), and that the Commission ignored those recommendations. That is not the case. Rather, scientists ran a set of “if–then” scenarios for managers, without making a preferred TAC recommendation. The Technical Committee and the ERP Working Group supply projections and risk information; the commissioners decide policy.

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition has undertaken a detailed analysis and thorough review of all the meeting materials and reports, and of the entire recording of the meeting available online. It shows there is nowhere the Technical Committee (TC) or the ERP Working Group “recommends” a 54% cut, or any specific TAC. Staff consistently present options and risks at the Board’s request, not a recommendation.

The only time a 54% cut is presented as a recommendation is when Commissioner Proxy Matt Gates (CT) incorrectly described the option provided at the Board’s request as a recommendation. His motion reads: “I would like to make the motion for the TAC recommended in the TC and working groups memo that achieves a 50% probability of achieving the ecological reference point F target… move to set the TAC… at 108,450 metric tons….”

What the record shows (brief)

  • No staff “recommendation” for 54%. Technical staff presented options and risk probabilities at the Board’s request; they did not tell the Board which TAC to choose. The sole place a “recommendation” is claimed is the Gates motion quoted above. The staff materials do not recommend that TAC; they simply show it as one scenario.
  • Why 2025 numbers differ from 2022. The 2025 update uses a lower natural-mortality (M) estimate, which re-scales the entire 1955–present series (average biomass ≈ 37% lower vs. 2022). That’s a model re-interpretation, not a stock crash, total biomass is slightly higher than in 2021.
  • Considering economics is required. Section 6(a) of ASMFC’s ISFMP Charter: “Social and economic impacts and benefits must be taken into account.” The Board did exactly that.
  • The chosen 20% TAC reduction is biologically conservative.Projections show 0% probability of exceeding the ERP F-threshold (no overfishing) in 2026–2028, and only 2–4% risk of dipping below the fecundity threshold, nearly indistinguishable from a ~54% cut on that metric.
  • Threshold vs. target, in plain terms. The threshold is the do-not-cross line that ensures enough menhaden for today’s predators. The targetassumes a future in which striped bass are rebuilt and fished at their own F-target. That’s not today’s world, striped bass are overfished and being rebuilt at lower F.
  • Cutting menhaden alone can’t rebuild stripers. As Dr. Katie Drew told the Board (Feb. 2020): “you have to adjust all of them at once… if you don’t adjust the striped bass fishing mortality nothing you do to menhaden will bring that population back… we need to adjust both of them together.”

Read the full analysis here

Examples of the inaccurate “recommendation” narrative (links)

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition
The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) is a collective of menhaden fishermen, related businesses, and supporting industries. Comprised of businesses along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition conducts media and public outreach on behalf of the menhaden industry to ensure that members of the public, media, and government are informed of important issues, events, and facts about the fishery.

2026 Cap on Menhaden Catch Cut by 20%

November 6, 2025 — The cut was approved by ASMFC’s Menhaden Management Board, which reviewed both the updated single-species stock assessment for menhaden and the 2025 Ecological Reference Points (ERPs) Assessment and Peer Review Reports.

The ERP model used Atlantic striped bass as the focal predator species. According to ASMFC, striped bass are the most sensitive predator fish when considering the menhaden harvest.

ASMFC said the goal of the ERPs is to maximize sustainable menhaden harvest while ensuring adequate forage for striped bass. Menhaden are considered a critical forage species.

The assessment found that menhaden are not currently overfished, nor is overfishing occurring based on current benchmarks.

However, fishing mortality exceeded the target, and fecundity—a measure of egg production—was below the target.

As a result, the Board set the 2026 TAC at 186,840 metric tons, down from the 2023–2025 TAC of 233,550 metric tons.

Read the full article at News On The Neck 

Ocean Harvesters Responds to Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s August 7 Press Release

August 8, 2025 — The following was released by Ocean Harvesters:

A press release issued yesterday by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) continues a multi-year pattern of gross dishonesty, as it presented an incomplete and misleading narrative regarding menhaden management in the Chesapeake Bay. CBF’s misleading release includes a statement from Virginia Executive Director Chris Moore that ignores and disparages the established science, and the regulatory framework that ensures the fishery remains sustainable and responsibly managed.

In response, Ocean Harvesters has issued the following:

The CBF release refers to “growing warning signs around the Chesapeake Bay”:

“There are clear signs of peril in the Chesapeake, and menhaden are one of the connecting threads.“

This claim is not supported by any independent, peer-reviewed science, but rather represents the biased opinion of a special interest group. The assertion that “there are clear signs of peril in the Chesapeake, and menhaden are one of the connecting threads” overstates both the available scientific evidence and the known ecological dynamics of the Bay. While ecosystem concerns merit monitoring, attributing broad Chesapeake Bay challenges to already conservative menhaden harvest regulations is not supported by the best available science.

In 2024, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) presented data to the ASMFC on osprey populations which showed osprey reproduction challenges and nest failures occurring on both the Atlantic and Pacific Coast, including many areas with no menhaden fishery at all. In a letter to Congress earlier this year, USGS said it found no direct link between regulated menhaden harvests and declining osprey populations. The federal agency emphasized that multiple, complex factors, including weather, predation and prey access, contribute to ecological trends in the Bay.

 

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey present a slide to the ASMFC showing that the recent leveling-off in Maryland and Virginia osprey populations, after years of explosive growth, is a phenomenon also being seen in states across the nation, on both the East and West Coast.

Ocean Harvesters menhaden fishermen.

 

The statement includes: “This new timing of intense fishing pressure may be contributing to the problems facing the Chesapeake Bay.”

Any adjustment in the timing of Bay fishing is minor and reflects natural shifts in the seasonal population dynamics of menhaden, not a quantifiable increase in harvest pressure or ecological harm. No scientific evidence has established any link between this timing shift and the broad ecological challenges described in the release.

While the press release references anecdotal concerns from Maryland fishers, it omits mention of well-documented water quality issues in Maryland that may also explain the localized fishery observations cited.

Another claim in the statement reads: “One foreign-owned company consistently prevents progress in Virginia, and now coastwide at the ASMFC.”

This statement is inaccurate. Omega Protein is a Virginia-based processing company, and the menhaden are harvested by Ocean Harvesters, a separate American-owned and operated company whose crews are overwhelmingly local, unionized, and multi-generational, represented by UFCW Local 400, AFL-CIO. This domestic fleet works in full compliance with harvest controls, vessel reporting, and ecosystem-based management thresholds set by the ASMFC. CBF is clearly attempting to mislead the audience with distorted information and is crossing a very serious ethical line of misinformation that merits further scrutiny.

CBF’s repeated implication that the industry has obstructed scientific research misrepresents the actual facts. Ocean Harvesters supported a comprehensive ecosystem study of the menhaden fishery developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in 2021. However, the proposal that later emerged in the Virginia General Assembly used a lower cost, novel methodology that had not undergone scientific peer review. The industry raised legitimate concerns-not about research itself, but about relying on an untested approach for such a politically charged issue. CBF has repeatedly and inaccurately characterized this as blanket opposition to science. In fact, the industry continues to support the original, science-based study design developed by ASMFC, and no menhaden research could be conducted without longstanding industry cooperation.

The statement concludes: “The Chesapeake’s fisheries and predators can’t wait. Menhaden are key to a thriving Chesapeake Bay, and a healthy, productive Chesapeake is vital to the entire Atlantic coast.”

There is simply no Chesapeake Bay crisis that would threaten fisheries or predators. The menhaden fishery is already one of the most scientifically scrutinized in the United States.

The menhaden fishery is currently:

  • Not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring, as confirmed by repeated stock assessments.
  • Certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
  • Governed by ecosystem reference points that account for predator-prey relationships
  • Subject to real-time reporting, seasonal harvest caps, and rigorous monitoring under ASMFC’s management plan

Here is the true threat: CBF’s statements add up to nothing more than scare tactics that threatens the livelihood of hundreds of blue collar, multi-generational employees, many of whom are minority and UFCW Local 400 union workers, in Virginia’s Northern Neck.

About Ocean Harvesters
Ocean Harvesters owns and operates a fleet of more than 30 fishing vessels in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The company’s purse-seine fishing operation is exclusively engaged in the harvest of menhaden, a small, nutrient-dense fish used to produce fish meal, fish oil, and fish solubles. Both its Atlantic and Gulf Menhaden fisheries are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. Committed to responsible fishing operations, Ocean Harvesters is proud to be heir to a fishing legacy that extends nearly 150 years.

Omega Protein urges scientific review before menhaden fishery cuts

July 31, 2025 — Menhaden processor Omega Protein and its harvesting partner Ocean Harvesters have urged the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to conduct further scientific reviews before considering potential reductions to the Chesapeake Bay menhaden fishery.

In a letter to the ASMFC, Omega Protein Senior Scientific Advisor Peter Himchak argued that recent concerns linking menhaden fishing to declines in osprey populations are being overstated, calling for a broader investigation into possible causes.

Himchak, a former fisheries biologist with the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife and longtime advisor to the ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, criticized what he called an “inordinate amount of focus on menhaden generally, and the reduction fishery in particular,” in discussions of osprey declines.

In particular, he pushed back against recommendations made by the ASMFC’s Work Group on Precautionary Management in the Chesapeake Bay, calling them “draconian” and warning that implementing restrictions without clear evidence of depleted menhaden stocks or proven impacts on osprey risks harming an industry that supports hundreds of jobs and has operated for over 150 years.

Read the full article at Aqua Feed

Omega Protein and Ocean Harvesters Urge Science-Based Review Before Imposing New Menhaden Restrictions

July 29, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

In a letter submitted to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), Peter Himchak, Senior Scientific Advisor to Omega Protein, warned that “there has been an inordinate amount of focus on menhaden generally, and the reduction fishery in particular” in discussions about recent osprey declines in the Chesapeake Bay.

Omega Protein, which processes menhaden into fishmeal, fish oil, and related nutritional products, is supplied by Ocean Harvesters under a long-term harvesting agreement. Himchak submitted the letter on behalf of the company ahead of the ASMFC’s Summer Meeting.

Himchak, who served for 39 years as a fisheries biologist with the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife and as a long-time advisor to both the ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, sat on the ASMFC’s Atlantic Menhaden Technical Committee and Stock Assessment Sub-Committee from 1988 until 2006.

In the letter, Himchak criticized the ASMFC’s Work Group on Precautionary Management in Chesapeake Bay for proposing “draconian management recommendations ‘without determining if there is or is not an adequate supply of menhaden to support predatory demand in the Bay.’” He warned that moving forward with such actions without first determining whether there are, in fact, fewer menhaden in the Bay or whether the fishery has any impact on osprey “risks gravely impacting a more than 150-year-old industry and hundreds of jobs while doing nothing to improve the osprey situation.”

Himchak wrote that the ASMFC’s Technical Committee (TC) already has a significant workload in advance of the Commission’s Annual Meeting, but raised four areas of scientific inquiry the TC could investigate that would provide the Board with more complete information. 1) He asked whether “the phenomenon of reduced osprey production [is] confined to the times and areas in which the menhaden reduction fishery operates,” referencing USGS data showing declines in osprey abundance in coastal areas of multiple states—not just the Chesapeake—and increases in interior regions. He also noted that the fishery does not begin fishing until May or later—after migrant ospreys arrive in the region from late February to early March and begin building nests from mid-March to mid-April—raising questions about how the fishery could influence osprey’s months-earlier decisions about where to nest.

2) He wrote that there have been sizable increases in populations of multiple menhaden-dependent predators since at least the turn of the century, and that a stomach contents analysis of striped bass, which are only somewhat dependent on menhaden, indicated they “are not starving and would be considered healthy.” Therefore, he asked, “is it more likely that ospreys are being outcompeted or that the reduction fishery uniquely impacts osprey?”

3) Regarding eagle-osprey interactions, he noted a recent Maryland DNR release announcing “large increases in the state’s bald eagle population.” He referenced myriad studies finding that bald eagles are “kleptoparasitic”—a term used to describe their well-documented habit of attacking hunting osprey to steal their food or prey on adults, young, and eggs. Citing a study from Voyageurs National Park, he wrote that “increased numbers of eagles were associated with a reduction in the numbers of osprey nests, their nesting success and heronry size,” and asked whether “issues of competition and depredation [can] be ruled out as a cause of osprey’s lack of breeding success.” He further pointed to “significant scientific and anecdotal evidence of the dominant and adverse impacts eagles have on osprey.”

That concern was echoed in a newly released Saving Seafood special report titled “Bald Eagle Recovery in Chesapeake Bay Raises Red Flags for Osprey.” The report compiled over three decades of peer-reviewed research, field observations, and published accounts documenting instances in which eagles had a negative impact on osprey populations. In one study, researchers found “eagle abundance was negatively associated with nest reuse (i.e., persistence) and success of ospreys.” Significantly, the researchers found “little evidence of bottom-up limitations,” such as poor weather or declining fish stocks, and emphasized the role of eagle aggression, including harassment and food theft. While this body of research does not prove the resurgence of bald eagles in the Chesapeake to be the cause of osprey reproduction issues, it does indicate it is a possibility deserving of further investigation.

The full report is available at: https://www.savingseafood.org/science/bald-eagle-recovery-in-chesapeake-bay-raises-red-flags-for-osprey

4) Himchak also asked the Technical Committee to consider whether osprey foraging success is being affected by climate-driven environmental changes, including storm frequency, shoreline hardening, warming waters, or hypoxia. Citing a 2024 study by Bryan Watts, he noted that “deliveries of all forage species to osprey nests declined steadily from 1974 to 2021,” and asked whether “ospreys’ apparent lack of foraging success is tied to changes in local conditions that are impacting either local abundance of forage or osprey’s hunting success.”

He concluded the letter by writing, “The commission must be guided by science. Precipitous actions, taken in the name of precaution, are not always harmless. Neither Ocean Harvesters nor Omega Protein can survive without the current low level of access to the menhaden resource in the Bay. There simply are not enough ‘fishable days’ – that is, days where the weather and sea conditions allow vessels to operate – in a year to safely conduct a profitable fishery solely in the ocean. The menhaden fishery is managed in the most conservative manner in its 150 year or so history, and the reduction fishery is operating at its lowest sustained levels – in the Bay and overall – for as long as we have reliable records (i.e., since the 1950s). Precaution is already the policy. Before taking actions that could cause irreversible economic harm to this historic fishery, the Board should ensure that all reasonable avenues of inquiry into the issues facing osprey are explored.”

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition
The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) is a collective of menhaden fishermen, related businesses, and supporting industries. Comprised of businesses along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition conducts media and public outreach on behalf of the menhaden industry to ensure that members of the public, media, and government are informed of important issues, events, and facts about the fishery.

ASMFC 2025 Summer Meeting Final Agenda and Materials Now Available

July 23, 2025 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Summer Meeting will be August 5 – 7, 2025 at The Westin Crystal City. This will be a hybrid meeting (both in-person and remote) to allow for participation by Commissioners and interested stakeholders. The room block is now closed; if you need assistance reserving a room, please contact Lisa Carty at lcarty@asmfc.org.

 The final agenda and meeting materials for the Summer Meeting are now available athttps://asmfc.org/events/2025-summer-meeting/; click on “Meeting Materials” under the relevant Board/Committee name to access the documents for that Board/Committee. For ease of access, materials for all boards have been combined into one document – https://asmfc.org/resources/management-meeting-materials/2025-summer-meeting-materials/. Supplemental materials will be posted to the website on Wednesday, July 30. 
 
Please note: the Coastal Sharks Management Board meeting, previously scheduled for Wednesday, August 6 (11:30 AM – 12:15 PM) has been canceled. The Weakfish Management Board meeting, which was previously scheduled for Tuesday, August 5 (1 – 2 PM) will now occur Wednesday, August 6 (11:30 AM – 12:15 PM). The timing of other meetings on August 5 has been slightly modified. Be advised the agenda’s schedule is subject to change; the order in which the agenda items are listed is subject to change, and other agenda items or meetings may be added as necessary.

Charter fishing captains sue to overturn striped bass regulations

May 27, 2025 — Mid-Atlantic charter fishing captains are leading a federal court challenge to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and its decisions limiting the striped bass seasons.

The charter operators say they are taking aim at the ASMFC’s actions to limit the 2024 season “through a combination ofshortening the fishing season; reducing the size of removable fish; lowering commercial quotas; and limiting recreational fishers on charter boats to one fish per day.”

In a May 14 announcement about the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., the charter captains cited Maryland Department of Natural Resources reporting after the close of the 2024 fishing season as confirming the association’s predictions “that the ASMFC rule changes would devastate the industry with a revenue drop-off of up to 75 percent.”

Maryland Charter Boat Association president Brian Hardman “confirmed those results and reported that over 50 companies have already been forced out of business and have had to put their vessels on the market at ‘fire sale prices,’” the captains say.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

ASMFC Approves Amendment 4 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Northern Shrimp

May 11, 2025 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission approved Amendment 4 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Northern Shrimp. In response to the continued poor condition of the northern shrimp stock, Amendment 4 modifies the first objective of the FMP to recognize the influence of environmental conditions on stock productivity and lengthens the amount of time the Northern Shrimp Section can set a moratorium from one year to up to five years. The Section can call a meeting at any time to review information relative to the fishery and the resource and initiate management action if necessary.

Amendment 4 also adds management triggers to the FMP as part of the annual stock monitoring process. Management triggers include recruitment and temperature triggers that signal potential improvement in stock conditions. The recruitment trigger will be achieved when the stock experiences non-failed recruitment for three consecutive years. If achieved, a stock assessment update will be conducted. If the recruitment trigger is not achieved, but non-failed recruitment occurs in two out of three years, the Section will consider conducting a winter sampling program without the use of size-sorting grates. This program will allow the Northern Shrimp Technical Committee to evaluate stage and length frequencies, and year class persistence before initiating a full assessment update. The temperature trigger will be considered reached when two out of three consecutive years of winter surface temperature and spring bottom temperature in the Gulf of Maine fall below the 80th percentile of the reference period. If achieved, the Section will consider a winter sampling program. These triggers are intended to help the Section identify if the stock is viable enough to support a fishery.

Finally, Amendment 4 adds the specifications setting timeline and management triggers to measures subject to change through adaptive management, allowing these management measures to be changed in the future via an addendum rather than an amendment.

All provisions of Amendment 4 are considered effective immediately. Amendment 4 will be available on the Commission’s website, https://asmfc.org/species/northern-shrimp/, by the end of May. For more information, please contact Chelsea Tuohy, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at ctuohy@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.

 

Horseshoe Crab Board Approves Addendum IX Addendum Allows Multi-Year Specifications for Male-Only Harvest

May 8, 2025 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Horseshoe Crab Management Board approved Addendum IX to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Horseshoe Crabs. The Addendum allows the Board to set specifications for male-only harvest. It also establishes a method for managing male-only harvest limits during multi-year specifications periods, reestablishes seasonal harvest restrictions, and clarifies policy related to harvest caps for Maryland and Virginia.

Addendum IX responds to recommendations from the July 2024 Horseshoe Crab Management Objectives Workshop, which convened a group of stakeholders to explore management objectives for the Delaware Bay-origin horseshoe crab fishery. Workshop participants recommended the Board establish an interim solution to maintain male-only harvest while changes to the Adaptive Resource Management (ARM) Framework are explored to better align the model with stakeholder values.

The Addendum allows the Board to set multi-year specifications for up to three years until 2031 based on the ARM Framework. In interim years when the ARM is not used, the Board will manage maximum male harvest limits based on Delaware Bay region spawning survey data.  Addendum IX also reestablishes a harvest closure for the Delaware Bay region states from January 1 through June 7. Lastly, the Addendum clarifies the policy included in Addenda VII and VIII for applying Maryland and Virginia harvest caps; these caps further restrict harvest for Maryland and Virginia when female harvest is implemented in the Delaware Bay region.

Addendum IX will be available on the Commission website at https://asmfc.org/species/horseshoe-crab/ by next week. For more information, please contact Caitlin Starks, Senior Fishery Management Coordinator, at cstarks@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.

Read the release from the ASMFC 

 

Menhaden fishers urge ASMFC to maintain quotas in face of NGO criticism

May 6, 2025 — The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition and six shop stewards representing union fishermen participating in the Chesapeake Bay menhaden fishery are urging the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to maintain current allowable catch levels in the face of NGO criticism.

The ASMFC Menhaden Management Board is meeting on 7 May to discuss management of the species. In a letter to the board, members of the UFCW Local 400 union called on board members to listen to fishermen and adopt regulatory practices based on “sound scientific principles” rather than listen to environmental groups that claim the fishery is responsible for declines in other species in the Chesapeake Bay.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource