June 29, 2026 — Governor Abigail Spanberger has sent the compromised Virginia budget proposal back to lawmakers with 14 amendments.
These changes would require an additional $62 million of the State’s remaining surplus, which currently sits at about $179 million.
The General Assembly will convene for a special session in Richmond on Monday, just one day ahead of the deadline, to vote on the changes.
June 26, 2026 — “We are extremely pleased that Gov. Abigail Spanberger has announced her intention to send budget language to the General Assembly that includes a study of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. We look forward to continuing to work with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) in collaboration with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) to develop a scientific study of the Bay’s Atlantic menhaden population.
We were especially pleased to see that the ongoing work being funded by the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), a National Science Foundation-supported cooperative research center, will be available to support the study. The SCEMFIS-funded researchers from VIMS, NOAA, and the Univeristy of Maryland Center for Environmental Science have already provided a great deal of scientific guidance as part of their roadmap project to identify the research needed to support a science-based Bay harvest cap. We hope the Virginia General Assembly will adopt the Governor’s amendment, and we look forward to working with stakeholders involved in the process.
Last, we are also very grateful to the legislators who have worked to help ensure that jobs are protected and the study is based on sound scientific data.”
About Ocean Harvesters
Ocean Harvesters owns and operates a fleet of more than 30 fishing vessels in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of America. 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.
June 25, 2026 — Menhaden processor Omega Protein and menhaden harvester Ocean Harvesters are both pushing back after an environmental NGO laid the blame for a lack of funding for research in Virginia’s two-year state budget.
A proposed research initiative for menhaden would have provided USD 1 million (EUR ) per year for two years to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in order to develop scientific research on the species, and a scientifically justifiable Chesapeake Bay harvest cap. Under current regulations, the menhaden quota in the Chesapeake Bay is 51,000 metric tons (MT), but that total is based on average landings of menhaden and not a biological reference point.
June 24, 2026 — Virginia House and Senate lawmakers finalized the state’s $205 billion 2026-28 biennial budget in June without approving funds for research of the state’s Chesapeake Bay menhaden population.
Omega Protein and its fishing partner Ocean Harvesters of Reedville, Va., have been accused by Chesapeake Bay Foundation officials of “continued political pressure” on legislators, resulting in denial of the funding.
There were three bills introduced in the 2026 Virginia legislative session associated with the funding and encouraging more overall menhaden research and oversight of the fish and industry. All three bills were killed in committee.
A bill (SB)-474 was introduced by state Sen. David Marsden, D-Fairfax, which would have established the Atlantic Menhaden Research Fund to direct the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) to conduct dedicated population studies of the fish to establish ecologically meaningful harvest limits.
Another bill (HB)-1048 was introduced by Del. Betsy Carr, D-Richmond, who sought to halt industrial menhaden purse-seine fishing in the Chesapeake Bay until “research” could certify that the fishery does not negatively impact other species. The bill stated “determination that the fishery does not create a negative impact shall be made by the state Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources and certified in writing by the Virginia Code Commission”
In addition, (HB)-1049 was also introduced by Delegate Carr that encouraged Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) to develop and maintain a quota management system for bay caps on seasonal quota periods. The bill also called for VMRC to mandate and fund independent observers on 10 percent of Ocean Harvesters’ fishing trips.
June 18, 2026 — A scientific paper documenting widespread reproductive deficits among Chesapeake Bay osprey is drawing attention from the commercial fishing industry, with Ocean Harvesters arguing that the study does not establish a causal link between the declines and Virginia’s commercial menhaden fishery.
The paper, Widespread Reproductive Deficits in Chesapeake Bay Ospreys, published in Frontiers in Marine Science, suggests that reduced availability of Atlantic menhaden may be a primary factor contributing to poor osprey nesting success in high-salinity regions of the Chesapeake Bay.
In a June 11 email statement provided by Ocean Harvesters, they claimed the study raised important question about osprey productivity but “does not prove that Virginia’s commercial menhaden fishery caused the problem.”
According to Ocean Harvesters, the paper relies on a series of inferences connecting poor osprey reproduction to food stress, reduced menhaden availability and ultimately commercial fishing activity, but stops short of demonstrating direct causation.
Peter Himchak, senior fisheries scientist at Omega Protein, also cautioned against interpreting the paper as definitive evidence linking the reduction fishery to osprey declines.
“This paper is likely to draw attention because it reads, at least up front, like an indictment of menhaden availability in the Chesapeake Bay,” Himchak said. “But the paper also details numerous other possible mechanisms that may affect osprey productivity, and those caveats are critical considerations in evaluating this issue.”
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.