Saving Seafood

ASMFC 2026 Summer Meeting Final Agenda and Materials Now Available

July 22, 2026 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Summer Meeting will be August 4 – 6, 2026 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 at https://asmfc.org/events/2026-summer-meeting/; click on 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/2026-summer-meeting-materials-august-2026/. Supplemental materials will be posted to the website on Wednesday, July 29.

Other resources (TA, Roster, Reimbursement Guidelines, etc.) are available near the top of the page in the Background Materials accordion under Meeting Information.

The agenda is subject to change. The agenda reflects the current estimate of time required for scheduled Board meetings. The Commission may adjust this agenda in accordance with the actual duration of Board meetings. Interested parties should anticipate Boards starting earlier or later than indicated herein.  At these meetings, action may be taken on any agenda item, including, but not limited to, reports from staff, technical committees, stock assessment committees, peer reviews, Law Enforcement Committee, advisory panels, plan review teams, and plan development teams.

Also of note, the Commission will be considering changes to its Rules and Regulations regarding guidelines on states declared interest on species management boards, as well as changing the name of the Legislative and Governor Appointees Sections to Legislative and Governor Appointees Committees.

Webinar Information

Meeting proceedings will be broadcast daily via webinar beginning Tuesday, August 4 at 10 AM and continuing daily until the conclusion of the meeting (expected to be 12:15 PM) on Thursday, August 6. The webinar will allow registrants to listen to board deliberations and view presentations and motions as they occur. To register for the webinar, please go to:https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/7353853081544591455 (Webinar ID: 898-319-835). I If you are joining the webinar but will not be using VoIP, you can also call +1 (415) 930-5321, access code 464-559-262. A PIN will be provided to you after joining the webinar. For those who will not be joining the webinar but would like to listen in to the audio portion only, press the # key when asked for a PIN.

Please note: The GoToWebinar platform has significantly changed, so please carefully review the webinar instructions to guide you through joining and participating in the webinar.

 Each day, the webinar will begin 15 minutes prior to the start of the first meeting so that people can troubleshoot any connectivity or audio issues they may encounter.  If you are having issues with the webinar (connecting to or audio related issues), please contact Chris Jacobs at 703.842.0790.

Meeting Process

Board chairs will ask both in-person and virtual board members if they wish to speak. In-person members can simply raise their hands at the meeting without logging on to the webinar, while virtual members will raise their hands on the webinar. The chair will work with staff to balance the flow of questions/comments between in-person and virtual attendees. The same process will be used for public comment. Depending upon the number of commenters, the board chair will decide how to allocate the available time on the agenda (typically 10 minutes) to the number of people who want to speak.

Public Comment Guidelines

To provide a fair opportunity for public input, the ISFMP Policy Board has approved the following guidelines for use at management board meetings:

For issues that are not on the agenda, management boards will continue to provide opportunities to the public to bring matters of concern to the board’s attention at the start of each board meeting. Board chairs will ask members of the public to raise their hands to let the chair know they would like to speak. Depending upon the number of commenters, the board chair will decide how to allocate the available time on the agenda (typically 10 minutes) to the number of people who want to speak.

For topics that are on the agenda, but have not gone out for public comment, board chairs will provide limited opportunity for comment, taking into account the time allotted on the agenda for the topic.

Chairs will have flexibility in deciding how to allocate comment opportunities; this could include hearing one comment in favor and one in opposition until the chair is satisfied further comments will not provide additional insight to the board.

For agenda action items that have already gone out for public comment, it is the Policy Board’s intent to end the occasional practice of allowing extensive and lengthy public comments. Currently, board chairs have the discretion to decide what public comment to allow in these circumstances.

In addition, the following timeline has been established for the submission of written comments for issues for which the Commission has NOT established a specific public comment period (i.e., in response to proposed management action).

  1. Comments received three weeks prior to the start of a meeting week (July 13) will be included in the briefing materials.
  2. Comments received by 5 PM on Tuesday, July 28 will be included in supplemental materials.
  3. Comments received by 10 AM on Friday, July 31 will be distributed electronically to Commissioners/Board members prior to the meeting.

The submitted comments must clearly indicate the commenter’s expectation from the ASMFC staff regarding distribution.  As with other public comment, it will be accepted via mail and email.

We look forward to seeing you at the Summer Meeting.

Atlantic Herring Area 1A Start Date Remains July 19, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

July 17, 2026 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Herring Management Board members from Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts met via webinar on July 17 to discuss the start date for the 2026 Area 1A (inshore Gulf of Maine) fishery. The Board members previously set the start date for July 19 at 6:00 p.m. as part of days out measures discussed in April 2026 (press release here). The additional meeting was scheduled after some industry members reported a significant increase in bait from the menhaden fishery and imported bait from the Canadian weir fishery on the market. As a result, there are some concerns about the possibility of a surplus of bait at the dock, lack of storage capacity for herring, a crash of the bait market, and general waste if the fishery were to open on July 19. However, not all members of industry expressed those concerns and noted that there are markets for bait. In addition, those industry members expressed that changing the start date at the last minute would cause hardships because crews were already lined up and vessels are prepared to begin fishing on July 19.

Given the lack of consensus among industry and only two days until the original start date, the Board maintained the July 19 start date with landing days starting at 6:00 p.m. this Sunday, July 19.

The effort control measures set in April 2026 are unchanged.

Days Out of the Fishery

  • Landing days will be set at zero (0) from June 1 until the start of the fishery on Sunday, July 19, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.
  • Landing days begin on Sunday of each week at 6:00 p.m. starting Sunday, July 19.
  • Vessels with an Atlantic herring Limited Access Category A permit that have declared into the Area 1A fishery may land herring five consecutive days a week. The week shall begin at 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and conclude at 6:00 p.m. on Fridays. One landing per 24-hour period. Vessels are prohibited from landing or possessing herring caught from Area 1A during a day out of the fishery.
  • Small mesh bottom trawl vessels with an Atlantic herring Limited Access Category C or Open Access D permit that have declared into the fishery may land herring six consecutive days a week. The week shall begin at 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and conclude at 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Weekly Landing Limit

  • Vessels with an Atlantic herring Category A permit may harvest up to 240,000 lbs. (6 trucks) per harvester vessel, per week starting Sunday, July 19, 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

At-Sea Transfer and Carrier Restrictions

The following applies to harvester vessels with an Atlantic herring Category A permit and carrier vessels landing herring caught in Area 1A to a Maine, New Hampshire, or Massachusetts port.

  • A harvester vessel may transfer herring at-sea to another harvester vessel.
  • A harvester vessel may not make any at-sea transfers to a carrier vessel.
  • Carrier vessels may not receive at-sea transfers from a harvester vessel.

Harvesters are prohibited from landing more than 2,000 pounds of Atlantic herring per trip from Area 1A until July 19, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. Landings will be closely monitored and the fishery will be adjusted to zero landing days when the Season 1 quota of 1,748 metric tons is projected to be reached.

For more information, please contact Emilie Franke, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at efranke@asmfoc.org or 703.842.0740.

The press release can also be found at https://asmfc.org/news/press-releases/atlantic-herring-area-1a-start-date-remains-july-19-2026-at-600-p-m/

 

Offshore wind turbines create home for Jonah crabs in New England as lobster population declines

July 16, 2026 — From the docks at the Port of Galilee in Narragansett, fishermen are selling lobster, but they’re also selling Jonah crab, a crustacean that’s been making itself at home near offshore wind turbines.

Historically, Jonah crabs that were caught in lobster traps were thrown back out to sea, but things started to change in the early 2010s when fishermen started targeting the species. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attributes the shift to a decline in lobsters in Southern New England waters.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission estimated there were roughly 50 million lobsters in this area in 1998. Fast forward to 2022, and the population dropped to less than 10 million.

“Environmental conditions in the American lobster’s range are changing at some of the fastest rates in the world,” the Commission wrote on its website. “The 2025 Assessment indicates the [Southern New England] stock is significantly depleted and overfishing is not occurring.”

Read the full article at WPRI

Editorial: Menhaden study should provide data needed for bay management

July 10, 2026 — Menhaden may be a relatively small fish but they have an outsized presence in ongoing debates about the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The menhaden industry and environmental groups have sparred for years over what constitutes sustainable fishing and how the annual catch affects the critical ecosystem on which so much depends.

By including $2 million in the recently approved state budget for a neutral and clear-eyed study of menhaden, Virginia lawmakers hope to provide the data needed to chart a thoughtful path forward. This is long overdue, and both sides of the debate are right to celebrate this important step by the commonwealth.

Prized for their energy-rich oil, Atlantic menhaden play a central role in the Chesapeake ecosystem, as they have done since long before Europeans settlers arrived here centuries ago. They eat plankton and small plants that improve the water quality while also serving as a primary food source for other bay animal and marine life, from striped bass to ospreys to whales.

Read the full article at The Virginian Pilot 

Menhaden Industry Fires Back at Conservation Group Over ‘Double Standard’ Criticism

The menhaden fishing industry is pushing back against the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s criticism of recent fisheries management decisions, accusing the conservation group of applying inconsistent standards to protect recreational anglers while targeting commercial fishermen.

The Menhaden Fishermen’s Coalition responded Monday to TRCP’s May 6 blog post that criticized the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s decision to form a work group on Chesapeake Bay menhaden management rather than immediately advancing harvest cuts.

TRCP had called the ASMFC decision “another delay for Chesapeake Bay menhaden conservation” and argued that reducing menhaden harvest could improve outcomes for predators like striped bass.

Read the full article at Seafoodnews.com

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.