Atlantic menhaden Archives - Page 3 of 24

SCEMFIS funds new project to study menhaden in Chesapeake Bay

October 27, 2025 — As debate over the sustainability of the menhaden fishery in the Chesapeake Bay continues between the fishing industry and environmental groups, the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) has funded a new project that will create a detailed roadmap for managing reduction fishery more effectively.

SCEMFIS said in a release the new project will feature scientists from Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and NOAA and aims to establish meaningful harvest caps for Atlantic menhaden in the bay. The project will review existing menhaden science – including estimated biomass, migration patterns, and the consumption of menhaden by other species – and find gaps in information that can be filled via more research.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Florida’s Oldest Seafood Trade Group Joins Menhaden Debate, Defending Science-Based Management

October 27, 2025 — The following was released by the Southeastern Fisheries Association:

The Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA) — established in 1952 and describing itself as Florida’s oldest seafood industry association with members ranging from fishermen and boat owners to processors, markets, bait providers, restaurants, transportation companies, for-hire charter operators, and consumers from North Carolina through Texas — has urged the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Menhaden Management Board to reject drastic new quota reductions and keep management rooted in the fishery’s risk framework and established reference points.

In a formal letter to the Commission, SFA pointed to the most recent ecological reference point (ERP) assessment, which, the group wrote, “again found that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring,” adding that “management has consistently been more conservative than single-species reference points would have historically prescribed.”

The association said those findings demonstrate that current controls are already protecting the resource. “The probability of exceeding the ERP F THRESHOLD under current management is low,” the letter states. Because of that low risk, SFA argued against the sweeping 55-percent harvest cuts being discussed by some commissioners and outside advocates.

Instead, SFA proposed a narrowly precautionary adjustment to the coast-wide total allowable catch (TAC). “The coastwide TAC should not be reduced by more than a precautionary 10 percent (i.e., no lower than 210,195 metric tons). This would ensure no chance of overfishing in 2026 and only about a 1 percent probability if maintained through 2027–2028.” The association emphasized that anything more severe would be inconsistent with the science and the Commission’s own risk analysis.

The letter also reminded commissioners of the guiding fairness standard contained in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Charter: “Management measures shall be designed to achieve equivalent management results throughout the range of a stock.” SFA cautioned against using allocation changes to offset or disguise politically motivated quota reductions, arguing that management should remain consistent across jurisdictions.

On Chesapeake Bay issues, SFA advised the Board to hold off on any new restrictions until the recently funded Bay-specific research is complete. “The Board should await this new and relevant science before taking further action.” the association wrote, referring to the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) study now underway to design a scientifically defensible Bay harvest cap.

SFA concluded that the Commission’s present management already provides a strong, precautionary framework. By the association’s own assessment, “The probability of exceeding the ERP F THRESHOLD under current management is low,” and therefore, it said, “The coastwide TAC should not be reduced by more than a precautionary 10 percent.” The group urged commissioners to let those numbers — not politics — guide their decision.

Read the full letter here

UFCW Local 400 Members Spotlight the Real Faces of the Menhaden Fishery in New Video

October 27, 2025 — The following was released by UFCW Local 400:

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 Union has released a new video highlighting the voices of its members who work as commercial fishermen in the Atlantic menhaden fishery. The video showcases the pride, tradition, and hard work of union members whose livelihoods depend on a fishery that has operated from Virginia’s Northern Neck for well over a century.

In the video, crew members describe the menhaden fleet as a family, one bound by generations of work on the water. Many fishermen are second-, third-, or even fourth-generation employees, carrying on a legacy of providing for their families and their community. They emphasize the importance of safety, solidarity, and teamwork in sustaining both their jobs and the Bay ecosystem.

The video highlights how the menhaden fleet, operated by Ocean Harvesters, an American-owned company, provides hundreds of family-supporting union jobs in Virginia’s Northern Neck. Ocean Harvesters’ crews are overwhelmingly local and members of UFCW Local 400 Union. The company’s operations are deeply tied to the region’s economy, employing one of the largest minority workforces in Northumberland County.

The fishermen also speak about misconceptions surrounding their industry. They describe their roots in the community and their commitment to doing the job the right way. “We love to fish, and we’re not destroying anything.” says one. Another adds, “Some people, you’re not going to get it through their head that we are not out there to destroy what keeps us going.” They urge viewers to look at the facts: “Just don’t take people’s word for it. Go do your research.”

The video also shows the challenges crews face when people suggest they should fish only in the ocean instead of the Chesapeake Bay. Fishermen explain that rough seas and weather conditions often make ocean trips unsafe or impossible, and that they rely on access to the Chesapeake Bay to make a day’s work. The footage underscores why safe, workable Bay conditions are essential for keeping crews employed and families supported.

“Our number one rule is safety first.” one crew member says. Another adds, “On the ocean, you got to be so careful that nobody gets hit, nobody gets whined through there.” A third explains the risk they manage with heavy gear: “The line takes on a lot of tension. It gets to the point where it may snap. You don’t want to be in the way of that line like that.”

Beyond safety, crew members describe the fishery’s impact on their families and the wider community, from paying for healthcare and college to supporting local businesses. “It’s a job. They’re out there trying to make a living. They’re not on these boats just to go out there and play,” one worker explains. Another sums up the local stakes: “This is a vital asset in this community, this company is.”

These firsthand accounts show the real people behind the fishery – skilled, safety-conscious union workers who depend on teamwork, seamanship, and responsible operations to do their jobs. The video captures the pride and resilience of a workforce that has kept the menhaden fishery thriving for generations, a living example of the American labor tradition and stewardship on the Chesapeake Bay.

Watch the full video here: https://youtu.be/zb3JjL_-RPI

Statement of the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition on the Upcoming Atlantic Menhaden Management Board Meeting

October 27, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

Tomorrow, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Menhaden Board is slated to take up several issues which have the potential to gravely impact this historic fishery. First, it will consider the results of the menhaden and ecological reference points (“ERP”) stock assessment. Despite a lower estimate of menhaden fecundity, the stock status remains not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The assessment team attributed this to the fact that menhaden “management has consistently been more conservative than single-species reference points would have historically prescribed.”

The second and most immediately consequential decision facing the Board is setting the total allowable catch (TAC) of menhaden for 2026 through 2028. Some are calling for up to 55% cuts to the current TAC, which would devastate not only the 150-year-old reduction fishery, but small-scale bait fishermen all along the Atlantic coast and the lobstermen and crabbers that depend on them. This is wholly unjustified. As the scientists who prepared the ERP assessment noted, even if the current TAC were to be maintained, “the probability of exceeding the ERP F_THRESHOLD [that is, overfishing to the detriment of menhaden predators] is low.” They also affirmed that the fishery has little impact on predators like striped bass because, for one, they mostly rely on younger fish that are not targeted by the fishery and, two, because the “main driver for Atlantic menhaden availability to predators is recruitment success,” which is mostly determined by environmental factors.

That said, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition supports a precautionary reduction of no more than 15% to the current TAC (or 198,518 metric tons). This level would ensure that there is no chance of overfishing over the next three years and provides fisheries managers confidence that the stock will remain healthy. This is a responsible TAC that promotes conservation and protects families that rely on the fishery.

The third agenda item of concern is the potential for initiating an action to consider reallocation of the TAC among the states. The Coalition does not oppose a review of current allocations. However, any attempt to mitigate the impact of drastic quota cuts by forcing only one or two states to shoulder the burden of conservation is inconsistent with the ISFMP Charter, which requires that “management measures shall be designed to achieve equivalent management results throughout the range of a stock.” As the initial and subsequent allocation systems did, any reallocation should consider current use of and dependence on menhaden. If reductions in the TAC are enacted, the Board should reevaluate the allocation of TAC to states with no fishery.

Finally, the Menhaden Board will address Maryland’s proposal to put new, unjustifiable limits on the precautionary Chesapeake Bay menhaden reduction fishery cap. There is simply no scientific justification for any such new measures. The Science Center for Marine Fisheries, administered by the National Science Foundation and supported by the fishing industry, is undertaking new research, led by the most respected scientists in the field, to investigate issues related to management in the Chesapeake Bay. The Board should await this new and relevant science before taking further action.

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.

Menhaden Misinformation: Four Organizations Push Drastic Cuts that Contradict the Assessment Record and Ecosystem-Based Management

October 27, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), and the American Saltwater Guides Association (ASGA) are circulating claims about Atlantic menhaden that don’t match the assessment record or how this fishery is managed.

Managers already have an ecosystem framework in place that ties menhaden harvest to predator needs. The 2025 single-species and Ecological Reference Points (ERP) assessment components (adopted and implemented by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)) underwent external peer review; under Total Allowable Catch (TAC) levels set since 2021, the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring in an ecosystem context. Risk management is keyed to avoiding the ERP fishing mortality threshold, and not arbitrary percentage cuts.

Claims being circulated, and the record

1) “Striped bass anglers are making big sacrifices that will be wasted unless menhaden quotas are cut by ~50%.”

The record:

Rebuilding success depends on keeping striped bass fishing mortality (F) low and hoping for improved recruitment; the few recent strong year classes (e.g., 2015, 2018) were heavily impacted by fishing mortality, and Chesapeake Bay recruitment has been below average for years, issues not caused by a menhaden-forage deficit. The next striped bass amendment must hold F low enough to protect weaker cohorts.
Assessment-team reinforcement: the Assessment report indicated that “minor changes in Atlantic menhaden harvest rates are not expected to have major negative effects on most predators”; rather only increasing effort to the “overfishing” level (F_THRESHOLD) “would cause declines in biomass for more sensitive predator species, particularly striped bass.” “As a result, … the probability of exceeding the ERP F_THRESHOLD under the current TAC is low.”
Proposals for cuts up to 55% are not indicated by the risk framework and would devastate the 150-year-old reduction fishery, small-scale bait fishermen along the coast, and the lobstermen and crabbers who depend on them without helping striped bass fishermen.

2) “Striped bass are starving due to a lack of menhaden; severe menhaden cuts are needed to rebuild striped bass.”

The record:

Striped bass rebuilding is driven by reducing striped bass mortality within the 10-year plan to 2029; board discussions since 2019 have focused on striped bass controls, not a forage shortage from the menhaden fishery.
Chesapeake Bay workgroup monitoring from Virginia and Maryland reported healthy striped bass body condition; the fish are not underfed.
Menhaden removals overlap little with what predators eat most: predators primarily consume age-0/1 menhaden, while the reduction fishery targets age-2+ fish.
Assessment team reinforcement: the fishery has limited impact on predators like striped bass because they largely rely on younger fish not targeted by the fishery, and recruitment (environment) is the main driver of young menhaden’s availability to predators.

3) “Severe coastwide cuts are necessary to hit a probability of not exceeding the ERP mortality (F) target.”

The record:

National Standard 1 (NS1) of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and peer-reviewed advice focus on preventing overfishing; the operative risk line in the ERP control rule is the F threshold, not the policy F target. Managers should select TACs that avoid any chance of exceeding the threshold.
Assessment team reinforcement: even maintaining the current TAC carries a low probability of exceeding the ERP F threshold; if managers seek extra assurance, a precautionary reduction of no more than 10% (to ~210,195 mt) produces no chance of overfishing in 2026 and only ~1% if held through 2027–2028.
ERP-based management already protects predators by capping risk at the ERP F threshold; under this system, menhaden are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring in an ecosystem context.
Adjusting TAC: a ≤10% precautionary reduction (~210,195 mt) provides no chance of overfishing in 2026 and about 1% if held through 2027–2028. Larger cuts are not indicated by the risk framework.

4) “Past TACs were far too high because menhaden abundance was overestimated.”

The record:

ERP-era TACs were set conservatively to avoid exceeding ecosystem risk thresholds; under ERP management since 2021, menhaden remain not overfished and overfishing not occurring in an ecosystem context.
The 2025 assessment’s natural mortality (M) re-estimation was empirically derived from the Ahrenholtz tag-recapture database and independently reviewed; the single-species and ERP models were externally peer-reviewed (including through NOAA Fisheries’ Center for Independent Experts) and should be treated as authoritative.
Assessment team reinforcement: despite a rigorous reevaluation that reduced fecundity estimates, stock status remains “not overfished” and “overfishing is not occurring,” attributed to “management [that] has consistently been more conservative than single-species reference points would have historically prescribed and [which] has continued with a conservative approach even under the 2020 ERPs [i.e., the current TACs].”

5) “Earlier assessments misestimated abundance by ~37%; ‘errors’ require a 55% TAC reduction.”

The record:

The “37%” talking point is misstated and does not justify fixed percentage cuts. The current natural mortality (M) (~0.932) is higher than historic values sometimes cited and was endorsed by the Center for Independent Experts after intensive scrutiny of the tag-recapture database. There is no basis to convert M updates into a mandated 55% reduction under ERPs.
Assessment team reinforcement: recruitment (environment) is the main driver of menhaden availability to predators; managing to the ERP fishing mortality threshold, not reverse-engineering large headline cuts, aligns with the science.

6) “Because the coastwide assessment ignores Bay impacts, new Chesapeake Bay-specific limits are needed now.”

The record:

There is no scientific justification for new Bay-specific limits beyond ERPs at this time; research from the Science Center for Marine Fisheries now underway will inform any Bay-focused questions, and managers should await the new science before acting.

Bottom line

ERP-based management already protects predators by capping risk at the ERP fishing mortality threshold; under this system, menhaden are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring in an ecosystem context.
Rebuilding striped bass depends on reducing striped bass fishing mortality; broad menhaden cuts are not a substitute and are not indicated by the ERP risk framework.

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Applauds Science-Based Review of Chesapeake Bay Menhaden Harvest Cap

October 24, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition today welcomed a newly funded Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) project to produce a research roadmap for Atlantic menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay as a long-overdue opportunity to replace political compromise with sound science.

For nearly twenty years, the Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap, a harvest limit that applies only to the reduction fishery, has been managed without biological justification. Regulators and scientists have repeatedly acknowledged this fact. The new project from SCEMFIS will identify the research needed to finally develop what the scientists leading the project call a “scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Chesapeake Bay cap.”

Regulators Acknowledge Current Bay Cap Was Never Based on Science
When the cap was first imposed in 2006, it was a political compromise between Virginia, Maryland, and environmental groups, not a conservation measure grounded with a scientific justification. As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) own Executive Director at the time, Vince O’Shea, testified before Congress in 2008, the Bay Cap was established “in response to a political problem” and “there was not a science basis for the Cap.”

That view was echoed by ASMFC’s scientific staff. In 2012, the Menhaden Plan Development Team concluded, “The annual Chesapeake Bay harvest cap is not based on a scientifically quantified harvest threshold, fishery health index, or fishery population level study.”

In a follow-up report that same year, the ASMFC Technical Committee stated: “The TC stands by its previous recommendation that, given the current fishery and history of landings, there has not appeared to be any biological benefit to the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Cap since it was implemented.”

The Technical Committee reinforced this position during the Commission’s December 2012 meeting, with the then-chairperson noting that, “Given the current structure of the industry right now, and the fish that they harvest, and the biological information that we’re collecting, there doesn’t seem to be any benefit” from the Bay Cap.

Previous ASMFC Chairman Confirms Lack of Evidence for Bay Cap
When Virginia appealed a 41% cut to the Bay Cap in 2018, ASMFC Chairman Jim Gilmore stated in a formal letter that “there is no evidence in Amendment 3 to support the view that lowering the Bay Cap was necessary to protect the Bay as a nursery area for menhaden and there is no evidence to suggest the Bay Cap is necessary to protect the Bay as a nursery for other species.” He concluded: “Leadership agrees the Amendment does not provide sufficient evidence to support such claims.”

Call for a Science-Based Approach
Despite repeated coastwide stock increases and consistent findings that the Atlantic menhaden population is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, the Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap has remained fixed at 51,000 metric tons, less than half the level originally set in 2006. Meanwhile, the ASMFC has allowed other Bay fisheries, including Maryland and Potomac River bait harvesters, to increase their quotas.

The Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap has become a symbol of how fisheries policy can drift away from science with outside influence from special interest groups dictating management strategies. The ASMFC’s own scientists have said for over a decade that there is no biological justification for this cap.

The Need for a Research Roadmap
The SCEMFIS-funded effort, led by scientists from the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and NOAA, will begin by conducting an extensive review of the existing data on relevant issues such as Atlantic menhaden biomass, the movement of schooling pelagic fish, and the consumption of Atlantic menhaden by Chesapeake Bay predators. They will also work with the industry to review data sources such as landings data and spotter pilot reports to complement existing peer-reviewed studies and other sources of data.

After the review, the researchers will identify knowledge gaps, and will propose new study designs and methodologies to fill these knowledge gaps to inform a Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap that is based on data and is scientifically defensible.

SCEMFIS is a collaborative project between the fishing industry and leading finfish and shellfish researchers aimed at improving our understanding of important commercial species and supporting sustainable management of the fisheries that depend on them. It is part of the National Science Foundation’s Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers program.

About the Menhaden Fishery
Atlantic menhaden support the largest commercial fishery by weight on the U.S. East Coast and sustain hundreds of unionized, family-supporting jobs in rural Virginia communities where few comparable opportunities exist. Fishermen are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400, earning family-sustaining wages and full benefits. The fishery is certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, the gold standard for responsible fisheries, and the ASMFC has repeatedly found that menhaden is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring.

SCEMFIS Funds Chesapeake Bay Menhaden Research Roadmap to Inform a Scientifically Defensible Bay Cap

October 23, 2025 — The following was released by the Science Center for Marine Fisheries:

The Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) has funded a new project that will create a detailed and actionable roadmap that identifies the research needed to develop a scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Chesapeake Bay harvest cap for Atlantic menhaden.

The project, funded at the Center’s fall meeting, is being led by scientists from the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL) at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES), the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), and NOAA. The team is experienced in matters related to Atlantic menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay, bringing decades of peer-reviewed research, assessment leadership, and survey design expertise to this work.

What the project will do
Drs. Genevieve Nesslage and Michael Wilberg (UMCES), Drs. Robert Latour and James Gartland (VIMS), and Dr. Amy Schueller (NOAA SEFSC), will conduct an extensive review of existing menhaden science, focusing on factors such as estimated menhaden biomass, migration patterns of schooling fish, and the consumption of menhaden and other forage species by Chesapeake Bay predators. The review will identify gaps in available information and propose specific study designs, analytical approaches, timelines, and estimated costs to guide new Bay-focused menhaden research.

Research recommendations will likely involve a combination of new data collection and analyses of existing datasets, including industry data such as landings information and spotter pilot reports.

The roadmap is intended to be practical and actionable, leveraging tools and data already in use and identifying where new information, such as novel tagging, hydroacoustics, and spatial modeling, would add significant value.

Why this matters
Current menhaden management in the Chesapeake Bay is built around a landings limit rather than a Bay-specific biological target. Commercial reduction landings of Atlantic menhaden from the Bay are currently subject to a 51,000-metric-ton Bay cap. This cap is based on the average of 2012–2016 reduction landings from the Bay, but it is not a biological reference point, and thus cannot, by itself, inform managers about the status of the portion of the stock within the Bay or the potential ecological impacts of harvest on other species.

Over time, the Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap has been adjusted as a matter of policy: reduced from 109,020 metric tons (2006) to 87,216 metric tons (2012) and then to 51,000 metric tons (2017). These caps were not based on Bay-specific biological analyses, and were intended as precautionary, interim limits. This project will define the research activities needed to evaluate Bay-specific conditions and ecological interactions so that future decisions about the Bay Cap can be grounded in robust, transparent science.

Economic importance of Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic menhaden support the largest commercial fishery by weight on the U.S. East Coast and play a critical role as forage for predators. The fishery supports a unionized workforce with strong wages and full benefits in a rural region with few comparable opportunities.

Project Team (selected qualifications in Atlantic menhaden & Chesapeake Bay)

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.

Robert J. Latour, Ph.D., Professor, 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.

James Gartland, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, 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.

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 (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.

Fishermen push back on proposed 55 percent cut to menhaden quota

October 23, 2025 — At the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) 83^rd Annual Meeting in Dewey Beach, Delaware, the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board is weighing a drastic cut to one of the coast’s most important forage fisheries. The board will consider new specifications for the 2026 through 2028 fishing years that could slash the coastwide total allowable catch (TAC) by more than half, from 233,550 metric tons to 108,450 metric tons, based on updated point benchmarks and committee projections.

According to an ASMFC report, the 2025 benchmark assessment identified a 37 percent decline in average menhaden biomass compared with prior models, largely due to revised natural mortality data. The ecological reference point (ERP) fishing mortality target was reduced from 0.19 to 0.15, meaning the current TAC now carries a 100 percent probability of exceeding the new limit. Even the recommended 108,450-ton TAC represents only a 50 percent chance of meeting sustainability goals, according to ASMFC.

The divide between industry and environmental groups

Public comments that have already been submitted to the board show a sharp divide between recreational and commercial interests. The American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and other recreational coalitions urged the board to adopt the reduced TAC, calling it essential to rebuild striped bass stocks and uphold the integrity of the ERP framework. The ASA’s letter argued that “under the current TAC of 233,550 mt, projections show a 100 percent probability of exceeding the ERP F target- placing the menhaden stock and dependent predators at risk.”

Commercial fishing group calls proposed cut “unscientific and absurd”

Commercial fishermen and their advocates see the proposed 55 percent reduction very differently. Dustin Delano, chief operating officer of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association (NEFSA), called on commissioners to “reject this unscientific and absurd 55 percent reduction to menhaden quota.”

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

NEFSA Reacts to ASMFC’s Proposed Menhaden Harvest Limit

October 22, 2025 — The following was released by the New England Fishermans Stewardship Association:

Dustin Delano, NEFSA COO, Warns Fishermen about the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Potential New Harvest Limits:

“All New England ASMFC Commissioners should reject this unscientific and absurd 55% reduction to menhaden quota. NEFSA calls for a fact-based quota reduction of no more than 10%, which would reduce the risk of overfishing to zero. Menhaden crews, lobster and crab fisheries, and working waterfronts would all suffer significantly under the proposed reduction. The ASMFC decision should be based on the best science available, not activist pressure from environmental groups.”

Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Menhaden Blame Game Isn’t Backed by CCB Findings

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

As Virginians, we share the public concern about the poor 2025 osprey breeding results reported by the Center for Conservation Biology (CCB). But the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s (CBF) attempt to pin those outcomes on the menhaden fishery misstates the timeline, overextends the CCB advisory’s inferences, and ignores other environmental factors that CCB itself noted.

What CCB actually reported

CCB’s news advisory organizes 2025 results by salinity (used as a proxy for local fish communities) and finds that higher-salinity sites had low productivity while low-salinity sites exceeded population-maintenance thresholds. CCB explicitly states “salinity is a proxy for the fish community” and that ospreys in high-salinity areas are believed to rely more on menhaden. CCB also documents many pairs that did not lay clutches in 2025, arriving on time in late February-early March, then abandoning territories in significant numbers, with many returning in June (a first for the Bay population). Finally, CCB notes that food stress showed up as single-chick broods (67% of broods in waters with salinity levels above 5 parts per thousand) and widespread post-hatch losses.

A presentation given by US Geological Survey scientists to the Menhaden Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in August 2024 shows that past research, including research by CCB Director Dr. Bryan Watts, identified other species as being the primary prey of osprey in the higher salinity areas of the Bay. To make the leap that menhaden is the singular problem is not supported by the data.

By Virginia law, purse-seine fishing for menhaden is closed until the Sunday before the first Monday in May (i.e., there is no fishing until early May).
According to Ocean Harvesters’ fleet logs provided to state regulators, menhaden fishing did not begin in the Bay until the week of May 26 in 2025, reflecting late arrival/availability of menhaden that is controlled by nature.
CCB states in a photo caption that: “Most young that starve in the nest die within the first two weeks after hatching.” If chicks hatch in April/early May, those deaths occur before fishing started.
CCB records pairs arriving late February-early March; many never laid eggs at all, events that obviously precede any fishing and indicate that birds may not return to the area in good health.

Taken together, CCB’s description of timing, plus the dates of the legal fishing season, make clear that early nest failures and the chick mortalities in the first two weeks after hatching occurred before the menhaden fishery began harvesting.

Where CBF goes beyond the CCB advisory

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s press statement asserts that CCB’s results “indicate insufficient local food availability in areas where the osprey diet relies on forage fish like menhaden.” CBF points to a decline in bait landings and juxtaposes those figures with the industrial reduction fishery’s annual catch to imply cause and effect.

That is CBF’s biased interpretation, not CCB’s conclusion. CCB does not directly blame the menhaden fishery; it infers food limitation from breeding metrics and salinity as a prey proxy.

CCB itself reports weather-related nest losses (high winds, extended rains) and notes that even low-salinity areas performed worse than recent years, evidence that multiple environmental drivers were at work in 2025.
Ospreys are generalist fish-eaters that take a range of species of suitable size; when menhaden aren’t present inshore, ospreys use other prey (e.g., gizzard shad, catfish). CCB’s map/photo captions and standard references reflect this dietary flexibility.
Fleet operations and observations indicate menhaden have arrived late in recent years, a function of environmental conditions, not fishing. The fishery has no mechanism to delay migration or in-Bay availability.
While menhaden bait landings may be lower in the Bay than in the past, CBF fails to consider the level of effort. There are documented instances of pound netters who have stopped fishing over the past few years through a combination of factors including higher costs for equipment and the inability to find dependable (and affordable) labor.
Bait landings reflect harvest effort and market conditions and are not a direct measure of local fish abundance or near-shore availability to osprey.

CCB’s 2025 advisory shows food stress signals in higher-salinity waters, but the timing and the text do not support CBF’s misleading narrative that the regulated menhaden fishery caused this year’s early nest failures and first-weeks chick mortalities. Those events occurred before the season opened and menhaden boats were still at the dock. Environmental factors, weather-driven nest losses (high winds/extended rains) and widespread post-hatch starvation, are plainly implicated in CCB’s account and must be part of any honest discussion, despite the self-interested view of a special interest group like the CBF.

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.