Atlantic menhaden Archives

One Angler’s Voyage Calls Out Distortions By ‘Forage Fish Campaign’

WASHINGTON — June 17, 2026 — A new post from One Angler’s Voyage by author Charles Witek takes a hard look at the recently launched Forage Fish Campaign and raises serious questions about the accuracy of its advocacy. While acknowledging that forage fish are ecologically important and deserve careful, science-based management, Witek argues that the campaign’s public messaging crosses the line from conservation advocacy into distortion by implying that forage fisheries have “collapsed” commercial fisheries coast-wide without providing data to support that claim.

The post is especially critical of a Forage Fish Campaign video that links menhaden boats, pair trawling, and forage fish harvests to the decline of a wide range of species, including sturgeon, flounder, marlin, sharks, bluefin tuna, weakfish, striped bass, and Atlantic halibut. As Witek explains, many of those species declined because of direct overfishing, bycatch, habitat loss, recruitment problems, or other documented causes—not because of any proven shortage of forage fish. In several cases, the post notes that the campaign’s claims are factually wrong, misleading, or unsupported by the science.

The central message is clear: forage fish conservation is important, but it is undermined when advocates rely on exaggerated claims, emotional appeals, and inaccurate graphics instead of the best available data. By calling out the Forage Fish Campaign’s misleading narrative, Witek argues that responsible fisheries advocacy must be grounded in facts—not public relations tactics that may ultimately damage the credibility of legitimate conservation efforts.

The following is an excerpt from One Angler’s Voyage:

Because forage fish are unquestionably important, it didn’t come as a particular surprise when I learned of the formation of a new organization calling itself “The Forage Fish Campaign.” According to its web page,

“The Forage Fish Campaign is a united coalition of captains, business owners, recreational anglers, and small-boat commercial fishermen.

“We’re concerned about the health of our coastal communities—and we’re fighting back.

“We’re engaging at the local, state, and federal levels to address the root of the problem: not our hard-working Americans—but industrial exploitation of our shared resources.”

That all sounds fine. There is a list of folks who have signed up as members, some of whom I know, many of whom I don’t. But I tend to get very nervous when I hear the word “campaign,” and here’s why: I believe that fisheries management ought to be based on the best available data. Sometimes that data isn’t available, and in such case, it’s entirely appropriate to worst-case the uncertainties, and take a more precautionary approach, but to the extent that the data is there, it ought to drive the decisions.

But that’s not exactly how “campaigns” function, because data and statistics are boring. Instead, campaigns are all about public relations, about catching the public’s attention, appealing to their emotions in an attempt to gain their support. And often, when people do that, the truth can be sacrificed for a more appealing story line.

And that’s what seems to have happened here.

I had heard of The Forage Fish Campaign, but wasn’t paying too much attention to it, when one of its videos happened to come across my Facebook feed. I let it play with the sound off, and noticed some graphics that just didn’t ring true. Like the proclamation, etched in stark black and white, that

“OVERHARVESTING OF FORAGE SPECIES HAS COLLAPSED COMMERCIAL FISHERIES COAST-WIDE”

Really? Which fisheries would those be? And what data did they have to support that claim of collapse?

So, the next time, I watched the video with the sound on, and heard the narrator, a New York charter boat captain and commercial fisherman, say,

“Used to go out in the fall, from deep in the heart of Raritan Bay, OK, towards Keyport, all the ways to Fire Island, there was bunker. Like 30 miles of bunker. Where are they today? I think it’s pretty obvious to say that the lion’s share of the bunker are being harvested by the bunker boats. The scale of their operation is enormous. The impact they’ve had is unbelievable. You could just talk to any fisherman, what’ll they say: “Oh, fishin’s terrible. Oh, there’s no bait. No bait!”

That might sound heartfelt, and some might even find it convincing, but it is not exactly the sort of hard science that should be underlying fisheries management decisions, yet when paired with video of a menhaden reduction boat setting nets, it probably is effective “campaign” material.

Read the full article at One Angler’s Voyage

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

ASMFC Defends Menhaden Delay as Debate Over Chesapeake Science Intensifies

May 15, 2026 — A debate over Atlantic menhaden management in the Chesapeake Bay intensified this week after critics pushed back against a recent statement from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation accusing regulators of delaying protections for the species.

The dispute centers on a May 5 decision by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to postpone public comment on Draft Addendum II, a technically complex proposal involving potential changes to menhaden management measures.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation described the move as a failure to address “dire warning signs” in the Bay, including “starving osprey chicks” and “plummeting bait catches.” But opponents argue the organization is overstating the science and unfairly blaming the commercial menhaden fishery for broader environmental challenges.

Read the full article at Seafoodnews.com

Menhaden fishermens’ paychecks likely to be smaller

May 15, 2026 — A recent announcement that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Menhaden Management Board has postponed a decision to place further restrictions on Virginia’s menhaden reduction fishery inside Chesapeake Bay means Ocean Harvesters of Reedville, Virginia, will begin fishing full throttle in June.

This will be the first season Omega Protein, the last large reduction fishery left on the United States East Coast, will have to abide by the 2026 ASMFC 20 percent coast-wide menhaden quota reduction approved by the commission in October 2025.

The reduction will not, however, impact Omega’s 51,000 metric ton quota that is the current allowable harvest quota from Chesapeake Bay waters. The ASMFC menhaden management board was considering time and area closers of Virginia’s menhaden reduction fishery in Chesapeake Bay “to be protective of piscivorous birds and fish during critical points of their life cycles.”

There was also concern that the reduction fishery was capturing forage fish before they moved through the bay up into Maryland waters. “The menhaden management board is going to conduct more studies on this,” says Ben Landry, Omega Proteins’ director of public affairs. “It is pretty clear to us though that we are not catching all the fish before they get to Maryland. When we are catching menhaden at the same time Maryland pound netters are catching plenty of fish, it is a good indication that we are not catching all the fish before they get to Maryland waters,” says Landry.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Peddles a False Menhaden Crisis—Not Science

May 14, 2026 – The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A May 5 statement by David Sherfinski of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) misleadingly portrays the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) as ignoring “dire warning signs” in the Chesapeake Bay by delaying action on Draft Addendum II for menhaden. But the Commission’s decision is basic due diligence: the draft addendum is technically complex, and the Board acted responsibly by choosing to refine the proposal before launching public comment.

CBF’s statement, however, leans on alarmist language, including “dire warning signs,” “starving osprey chicks,” and “plummeting bait catches,” and implies those outcomes are caused by the commercial menhaden fishery. But the available evidence does not support this, and presenting these issues as settled cause-and-effect is exactly how public confidence in fisheries governance gets undermined.

1) CBF is spinning a responsible pause as a crisis

CBF suggests the Board “delayed protections” for menhaden. But the Board’s decision to pause and form a work group reflects the reality that Draft Addendum II involves complicated design choices and real-world implementation questions that should be addressed before a public process begins.

CBF Forage Campaign Manager Will Poston called the Board’s action a “frustrating delay,” but that’s exactly backwards. Sending a complicated draft back for further development is what responsible management looks like—especially when the addendum’s mechanics and underlying assumptions are still being debated. Treating due diligence as a failure castigates the Board for doing the careful work the public expects.

2) “Dire warning signs” is hyperbole, especially when CBF treats uncertainty as a verdict

Osprey reproduction and local bait availability deserve careful attention. But referring to “dire warning signs” while implying the menhaden fishery is operating irresponsibly is not supported by the record.

On ospreys: The U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies have emphasized that multiple stressors can affect osprey productivity, and that food availability is only one factor among others such as disease, climate conditions, and water quality.

On bait: Declines in local catch cannot, by themselves, be used to diagnose a stock. Catch trends can reflect many different factors, including participation and fishing effort, costs and labor constraints, weather, shifting fish distribution, and conditions that affect where fish can live and how catchable they are.

3) Maryland Commissioner H. Russell Dize rejected scapegoating

During the May 5 Board discussion, Maryland ASMFC Commissioner H. Russell Dize warned the Board against exactly the kind of one-cause narrative CBF is pushing.

He said the Board had “taken the reduction fishery and set them out like a white elephant,” and made clear: “You can’t tell me that that’s the only problem we got with menhaden not coming into Maryland, coming up the Bay.”

Commissioner Dize continued: “You’re still not going to find the problem until we look further into what’s causing it… It’s our responsibility to find that and not just… blame this one group.”

Reflecting on his own personal history in the menhaden industry, he concluded: “I just don’t think they’re the culprit… We got other problems.”

4) CBF’s “mismanagement” insinuation clashes with the oversight record and the fishery’s MSC sustainability recertification

CBF’s statement insinuates that the fishery is being managed recklessly and must be curbed immediately. But the ASMFC’s management framework for menhaden is already precautionary and incorporates the species’ forage role through ecosystem-based reference points and oversight.

In March, the Atlantic menhaden fishery was recertified as sustainable under the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) program. MSC is an international nonprofit that operates the widely recognized blue MSC ecolabel for wild-capture fisheries. MSC certification is based on an assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard and carried out by independent third-party auditors. Certified fisheries have demonstrated that their fish stocks are sustainable, that they have minimized their environmental impact, and that they are managed effectively.

5) A serious policy debate requires a testable problem statement, not slogans

If the ASMFC is going to consider seasonal quota periods, rollovers, closures, or cap changes, the public deserves more than CBF’s headlines. At minimum, the proposal should clearly state:

What exact problem is being measured (where, when, with what data)
What evidence links that problem to fishery activity, as opposed to Bay-wide environmental conditions
What mechanism the rule is intended to change, and how success will be measured
How monitoring and enforcement will work in practice

That is what the work group should do, and what CBF’s statement does not do.

6) Advocacy shouldn’t substitute for evidence

Like too many CBF alarmist releases on this issue, the May 5 statement uses hyperbolic language to rile up its readers.

Chesapeake Bay challenges are real. But regulation-by-campaign, especially when it treats correlation as causation and elevates rhetoric over evidence, does not protect the Bay. It distorts public understanding and pressures regulators toward decisions that may be politically satisfying, but scientifically unmoored.

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.

Pilot Study Announced as Possible StepToward Bay-Specific Menhaden Data

May 7, 2026 — Critics of commercial menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay have called for Bay-specific science. The Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) announced a pilot is advancing that may be able to provide it.

SCEMFIS announced that a research team is preparing to test whether a method called Passive Integrated Transponder, or PIT tagging, can help fill key data gaps.

PIT tags are tiny devices inserted into fish, and when those fish later pass a detection point, the tag can be read—allowing scientists to track data such as movement, survival, and other patterns.

Read the full article at News On The Neck

Menhaden group claims ASMFC applied a double standard on economic impacts

May 6, 2026 — An analysis released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition argues that federal fisheries managers treated economic concerns differently when weighing striped bass and menhaden management decisions at last year’s annual meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).

The report titled “When Jobs Count, and When They Don’t,” compares discussions from the Atlantic Striped Bass and Atlantic Menhaden management board meetings held during the ASMFC’s 2025 Annual Meeting.

According to the analysis, socio-economic impacts were a central factor in the striped bass debate, where commissioners ultimately opted for a proposed 12 percent reduction in harvest despite the stock being below target levels. Instead, the board maintained the status quo and formed a work group with representation from multiple sectors.

During that meeting, speakers and board members repeatedly cited the potential impacts on charter operators, recreational businesses, tackle manufacturers, and coastal economies.

In contrast, the report says similar concerns raised during the menhaden discussion, particularly those tied to industrial fishing jobs, did not carry the same weight in the final decision.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

Atlantic Menhaden Recertified for Another Five Years as a Marine Stewardship Council Sustainable Fishery

May 5, 2026 — The Atlantic menhaden fishery has been recertified as sustainable according to Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standards. The recertification once again confirms that the fishery is environmentally sustainable and effectively managed.

The Marine Stewardship Council is the international gold standard for seafood sustainability and has one of the most rigorous certification programs in the world. All fisheries certified under the MSC benchmarks must undergo an independent third-party audit to confirm that they adhere to MSC standards.

MSC evaluates fisheries according to 28 separate sustainability criteria. These criteria are divided among three principles: the sustainability of the fishery, whether the fishery has minimized its environmental impact, and the effectiveness of its management. In order to be certified, fisheries must achieve a score of at least 60 on all 28 criteria. The fishery averaged a score of more than 80 for all three of the principles measured, scoring an 86.7 on the health of the species, 82.0 on its ecosystem impacts, and 96.3 on its management system.

Three companies, Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein in Virginia, and Lund’s Fisheries in New Jersey, represent the ‘client group’ supporting this MSC assessment.

“Our operations are focused on ensuring that everything we do is sustainable and based on ecologically sound management practices, and this recertification reflects that,” said Ben Landry, Vice President of Public Affairs for Ocean Fleet Services. “The Atlantic menhaden fishery is one of the most sustainable fisheries on the East Coast, and with this recertification, we will continue to be good stewards of the Chesapeake Bay and the resource.”

The Atlantic menhaden fishery was first certified in 2019. MSC-certified fisheries are required to undergo the recertification process regularly to ensure that they still meet the organization’s high standards.

“For nearly ten years, Lund’s Fisheries has collaborated with the MSC to assure domestic and international markets, vitally important to our long-term success, that the seafood we produce is managed sustainably based on the rigorous, annual, scientific and monitoring reviews that are the core of the MSC program.” said Wayne Reichle, President of Lund’s Fisheries.

The menhaden fishery operates primarily in Virginia and in federal waters off the coast of New Jersey. In Virginia, where the fishery has operated out of Reedville since the 1870s, the menhaden purse seine fishery harvests menhaden for use in marine ingredients such as fish meal and fish oil. In New Jersey, the purse seine fishery operating out of Cape May is a key source for menhaden used as bait in the Atlantic lobster and crab fisheries and Gulf crab and crawfish fisheries. Both fisheries are integral to their local fishing economies and coastal communities.

This MSC recertification reflects the most recent science on the health of the Atlantic menhaden resource and confirms that the fishery is being managed sustainably, for the future. According to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the interstate body that manages menhaden, the species is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

TRCP Video Series Is Latest Campaign to Spread Falsehoods About Atlantic Menhaden Fishery

May 5, 2026 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A recent video series from the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership continues the organization’s near decade-long practice of spreading misinformation about the Atlantic menhaden fishery. From substituting anecdotes for real science to misidentifying the companies involved in the fishery to mischaracterizing the state of the stock, the videos paint a misleading picture of a sustainable and economically vital fishery.

Menhaden Are Important — But the “Most Important Fish in the Sea” Claim Is Misleading

The videos repeatedly refer to menhaden as “the most important fish in the sea,” which also serves as the title for the series. This phrase comes from the title of a 2007 book by H. Bruce Franklin, a former Rutgers University English professor. While menhaden are an ecologically and economically important species, the moniker of “most important fish in the sea” has historically been misused by industry opponents to suggest that menhaden play an outsized role in the ecosystem compared to other forage species. This is not borne out by the science.

A 2015 analysis of the diets of five major predator species in the Chesapeake Bay found that Atlantic menhaden was not one of the top four most important prey species. Menhaden was found to be significant for just one predator, striped bass, while bay anchovy was significant for four of the species and was even more important for striped bass than menhaden. Similarly, a 2025 study of Gulf menhaden using cutting-edge stable isotope analysis found that they do not play an outsized role in predator diets and that there is no “most important” prey species in the Gulf.

Anecdotes Are Not a Substitute for Science

Besides misleading monikers, the videos frequently use anecdotes as stand-ins for real science. In one video, a drone operator states that she saw menhaden on 76 days in 2023, and just 24 days in 2025. In another, a filmmaker states that she is seeing fewer menhaden inshore, while a few years ago there were “acres and acres of menhaden all summer long” and “you could almost walk on [them].” She also falsely states that the “biggest threat facing menhaden is overfishing.”

While the observations of those on the water can in some cases guide sound science, individual anecdotes are not a substitute for the work of numerous scientists and fisheries managers who have found the menhaden population is healthy and sustainable. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has repeatedly found that menhaden are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Moreover, the fishery is certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), the international gold standard for seafood sustainability.

The Videos Misidentify the Companies Involved in the Fishery

Another video featuring a charter captain is replete with falsehoods. In it, the captain accuses an “industrial company, Omega [Protein]” of “taking more than the Bay can handle — it’s not sustainable.” This is not only incorrect on the merits — again, the fishery is managed for sustainability by the ASMFC and has been certified sustainable by MSC — but also misidentifies the company that harvests fish. Fishing is conducted by Ocean Harvesters, an American company based in Reedville, Virginia; Omega Protein is a processing company that does no fishing.

Sustainability Is Measured by Science, Not Visual Impressions

The charter captain further states, “you can sit out here and watch them pull up a gigantic net full of [menhaden] and you look at it and it’s like ‘how is that sustainable?’” The size of the net has nothing to do with the sustainability of a species that is measured in millions of metric tons. The menhaden fishery adheres to quotas set by federal managers and states based on the best available science. That is how sustainability is measured — not by the size of individuals nets.

The Osprey Narrative Ignores Scientific Complexity

The video series also features frequent fishery detractor Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation continuing to drive the narrative that menhaden fishing is responsible for problems with osprey productivity in the Bay. This claim is echoed by Remy Moncrieffe of the National Audubon Society, who states that a “lack of science in regards to the menhaden population, especially in the Bay, is one of the biggest deterrents we have towards effectively managing menhaden.”

Menhaden is one of the most studied fish species on the Atlantic coast. Menhaden fishery members have partnered with the Science Center for Marine Fisheries for the past decade, leading to numerous scientific publications and graduate-level theses. Landings data from the industry is used by NOAA scientists and the ASMFC in their menhaden stock assessments. And the industry is supportive of a new effort to produce a research roadmap for menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.

There is no scientific consensus that menhaden fishing is related to osprey issues in the Bay. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists have pointed out that osprey populations have leveled off in numerous areas around the country, including places like California and Washington where there are no menhaden, and that there are numerous environmental factors that impact osprey productivity. Fisheries scientists have also questioned the statistical basis that some avian researchers used to draw a link between menhaden fishing and osprey.

Menhaden Is Already Managed With Extraordinary Precaution

The videos call for “more precautionary management” of menhaden “while we get more science,” ignoring the fact that menhaden are already managed with extraordinary precaution, including the use of ecological reference points specifically designed to account for predator needs. This call echoes a TRCP petition to remove the fishery from the Chesapeake Bay, which would effectively lead to its shutdown. The idea of shuttering a fishery that has operated continuously for nearly 150 years, is not overfished nor experiencing overfishing, and is certified sustainable by the world’s preeminent seafood certifier flies in the face of all traditional fisheries management. Advocacy videos from TRCP using anecdotes, mischaracterizations, and straight up falsehoods do not change the truth about this fishery.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

SCEMFIS-Supported Menhaden Research Advances Work Toward a Scientifically Based Chesapeake Bay Harvest Cap

May 4, 2026 — The following was released by the Science Center for Marine Fisheries:

Last October, the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) funded a team of leading Atlantic menhaden researchers to develop a roadmap identifying the research needed to develop a scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Chesapeake Bay harvest cap.

The project brings together experts from the Batten School of Coastal and Marine Sciences & VIMS at William & Mary, the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL) at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES), and NOAA, combining decades of experience in peer-reviewed menhaden research, stock assessments, ecological modeling, and survey design.

SCEMFIS, a member of the National Science Foundation’s Industry-University Cooperative Research Program, brings scientists and industry together to fund and conduct applied marine fisheries research. Since the project began, the research team has worked collaboratively online and met in person in February in Solomons Island, Maryland, to review progress and plan next steps.

The roadmap project will produce final recommendations by the end of the year. Those recommendations are expected to include proposed methodologies, timelines, and costs for additional research needed to support development of a scientifically based Chesapeake Bay harvest cap.

At the SCEMFIS spring 2026 meeting in Nashville, Dr. Robert J. Latour, Professor at the Batten School of Coastal and Marine Sciences & VIMS, outlined the work completed so far and described how the team is evaluating potential methods to generate the Bay-specific data needed to support future management decisions for Atlantic menhaden.

Dr. Latour explained that Atlantic menhaden have been the focus of significant scientific and management attention because of their dual role as an important forage species and the basis for a long-standing commercial fishery. In the Chesapeake Bay, managers have sought to balance fishery removals with menhaden’s ecological role, including through the existing Bay landings cap. However, Dr. Latour noted that the current cap is not a scientifically derived biological reference point, but rather a precautionary limit based on average historical catch.

The research team’s work is intended to help identify what information would be needed to move from a precautionary cap toward a biologically-based management framework. That includes determining how to estimate local menhaden abundance, fishing mortality, movement between the Bay and coastal waters, and menhaden availability to predators.

As part of that effort, the team will begin a pilot study to test whether Passive Integrated Transponder, or PIT, tagging can be used to generate information that existing historical datasets cannot provide. PIT tags are small tags that are injected into fish and can be detected later if the fish pass through a receiver system.

“Tagging is one potentially promising option available to us to establish a Bay cap that is grounded in the best available science,” said Dr. Genny Nesslage, Associate Research Professor at the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory and leader of the menhaden roadmap project. “We are ultimately looking for research recommendations that prioritize accuracy, timeliness, and efficiency.”

The team is building on historic menhaden tagging work, including large-scale tagging efforts from the 1960s, while adapting modern technology to address current management questions. This type of tagging data can potentially help estimate exploitation and total abundance, two of the central questions surrounding Chesapeake Bay menhaden management.

The proposed tagging pilot project will include two major components.

First, researchers will conduct controlled holding studies at VIMS to evaluate whether the tagging process affects menhaden survival. Fish will be collected from the field, acclimated to captivity, and placed into trials in which all fish are handled the same way, except that some receive PIT tags and others do not. These trials will help determine whether the act of tagging itself affects survival and whether the method can produce reliable data.

Second, on May 12, the research team will visit Ocean Harvesters to begin planning field trials designed to determine whether tagged menhaden can be reliably detected during commercial fishing operations. Ocean Harvesters, which supplies menhaden to Omega Protein, has agreed to open its doors to the research team and work with them to determine how PIT tags could be retrieved on an ongoing basis while the fishery is underway. Researchers will evaluate whether receivers can be placed in the pump hose, on the chute where fish enter the vessel holds, or at Omega Protein’s processing facility as menhaden are processed. The field trials will involve placing known numbers of tagged fish into catches and measuring whether detection systems can reliably identify them under real-world harvesting and processing conditions.

The tagging concept is one piece of the broader SCEMFIS-supported roadmap project. The team is also considering other potential methods for generating Bay-specific data, including acoustic and LiDAR surveys, environmental DNA, stable isotope analysis, and other approaches that could help measure local abundance, movement, and predator consumption.

The tagging feasibility study, if successful, would provide an important early test of whether modern tagging technology can help answer some of the most challenging questions facing Atlantic menhaden management in the Chesapeake Bay.

Project Team

Selected qualifications in Atlantic menhaden and Chesapeake Bay

Robert J. Latour, Ph.D., Professor, Batten School of Coastal and Marine Sciences & VIMS, William & Mary

Quantitative fisheries ecologist focusing on predator-prey interactions, population dynamics, and habitat modeling. Lead/co-author of the 2023 study on female Atlantic menhaden reproductive biology and fecundity and co-author, with Gartland, of Virginia’s 2023 Atlantic Menhaden Research Planning report to the General Assembly and Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources.

James Gartland, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, Batten School of Coastal and Marine Sciences & VIMS, William & Mary

Quantitative fisheries scientist with extensive experience in the development of fisheries monitoring surveys, prey consumption models, and ecological indicators, including in Chesapeake Bay. Co-author of the 2023 menhaden fecundity study with Latour and Schueller and co-author of Virginia’s 2023 Atlantic Menhaden Research Planning report guiding Bay-specific research priorities.

Genevieve M. Nesslage, Ph.D., Associate Research Professor, CBL, UMCES

Quantitative fisheries scientist with research focusing on Atlantic menhaden spawning locations and larval dispersal, fishery sampling, survey design, overwintering habitat use, and predator-prey modeling. Former Senior Stock Assessment Scientist at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Michael J. Wilberg, Ph.D., Professor of Fisheries Science, CBL, UMCES

Fisheries stock assessment and management strategy evaluation specialist with research focused on Atlantic menhaden movement, mortality, growth, and predator-prey modeling. Lead author of the 2020 survey design for Atlantic menhaden in Chesapeake Bay.

Amy M. Schueller, Ph.D., Research Fish Biologist, NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Lead assessment analyst for Atlantic and Gulf menhaden and key contributor to the working group on ecological reference points, or ERPs, that underpin Atlantic menhaden management.

About SCEMFIS

The Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) brings together academic and industry expertise to address urgent scientific challenges facing sustainable fisheries. Through advanced methods, analytical tools, and collaborative research, SCEMFIS works to reduce uncertainty in stock assessments and improve the long-term sustainability of key marine resources.

SCEMFIS is an Industry-University Cooperative Research Center supported by the National Science Foundation. Industry organizations join SCEMFIS through an Industry Membership Agreement with one of the center’s site universities and contribute both financial support and valuable expertise to help shape research priorities.

Its university partners include the University of Southern Mississippi (lead institution) and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary. The center also collaborates with scientists from a broad network of institutions, including Old Dominion University, Rutgers University, the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, the University of Maryland, and the University of Rhode Island. These researchers bring deep expertise in finfish, shellfish, and marine mammal science.

Demand for SCEMFIS’s services continues to grow, driven by the fishing industry’s need for responsive, science-based support. The center provides timely access to expert input on stock assessment issues, participates in working groups, and conducts targeted studies that lead to better data collection, improved survey design, and more accurate modeling-all in service of sustainable, science-driven fishery management.