Saving Seafood

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Condemns Chesapeake Bay Foundation for Misusing Natural Fish Wash-Up to Push False Anti-Fishing Narrative

March 6, 2026 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition strongly criticizes the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Will Poston for exploiting the recent fish wash-up from Cape Henry, Virginia to Nags Head, North Carolina to promote yet another misleading attack on Virginia’s menhaden fishery.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is using this natural event to make false accusations and continue the campaign of anti-menhaden misinformation it has employed in numerous fundraising appeals, both online and in direct mail. It is another shameless attempt by CBF to make villains of the menhaden fishery, while failing to put the same focus on current environmental disasters, such as the vast amounts of raw sewage flowing into the Bay from the Potomac River. CBF’s effort to use this beach wash-up to smear the menhaden fishery fits a broader pattern: blame menhaden harvest first, oversimplify the science second, and ignore every other environmental stressor that is harder to politicize.

Mr. Poston falsely stated that efforts to fund research to better understand the Chesapeake Bay menhaden population have “been needlessly delayed by Omega Protein and their McGuireWoods lobbyists in Richmond.” There is no truth to that statement. Neither Omega Protein, nor Ocean Harvesters, nor McGuireWoods are standing in the way of any funding of a Bay survey.

The industry supports science. Over the past two decades, Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein have supported at least 15 scientific studies and have regularly provided detailed landings and operational data to NOAA and ASMFC scientists. The industry is currently working collaboratively with researchers day in and day out on menhaden tagging and other studies.

Through the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), a National Science Foundation (NSF) Industry-University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) that includes the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Marine Stewardship Council, and researchers from NASA, the industry has funded a project designed to identify the research needed to finally develop a scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Chesapeake Bay harvest cap for Atlantic menhaden. Led by scientists from the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and NOAA, it will review existing menhaden science, identify key data gaps, and recommend specific study designs, analytical methods, timelines, and costs for future Bay-focused research, including tools such as tagging, hydroacoustics, spatial modeling, and analysis of existing datasets like landings and spotter pilot reports.

When CBF says research has been “needlessly delayed” by the industry, it is distorting the record. The real issue has been making sure research is done with credible methods and defensible study design, not blocking research.

The fish die-offs are unfortunate. But as reported by WTKR News 3, Virginia Marine Resources Commission public information officer Zach Widgeon stated this was “not a result of a fishing spill or a net bust.” It was a natural cold-weather occurrence tied to a sudden temperature drop offshore.

The current die-off is not evidence of a collapsing forage base. It is evidence that menhaden remain abundant in Bay waters. As Mr. Widgeon noted, “There are so many menhaden out on the East Coast that you’re going to see them affected and washing up more than any other species.” CBF’s statements continually ignore this most basic scientific reality: Atlantic menhaden are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, according to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s current benchmark assessment. ASMFC’s management framework explicitly uses ecological reference points designed to account for menhaden’s role as forage for predator species.

CBF also ignores recent state survey data. In October 2025, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources reported that Atlantic menhaden were widespread in the Chesapeake Bay for the third consecutive year.

These attacks are aimed at real people in a real working community. The Reedville-centered menhaden industry provides the kinds of jobs that rural Virginia cannot easily replace. A Virginia Marine Resources Commission economic assessment found that the direct effects of the operation are heavily concentrated in Northumberland County, with 217 of 299 employees residing there, including 55 in Reedville. The report also describes the jobs as stable employment with benefits and union representation, and notes that most direct impacts occur in Northumberland County.

CBF is not just criticizing a fishery. It is attacking one of the most economically important sources of unionized working-class employment in Virginia’s Northern Neck, while presenting itself as the sole voice of the public interest. It is easy to issue inflammatory press releases, it’s much harder to create well-paying jobs with full benefits.

Anyone who wants to understand what is really at stake should hear directly from the union fishermen themselves. Readers should visit the UFCW Local 400 website and watch this video featuring the union fishermen describing their jobs in their own words.

BEN LANDRY: Call to shut down menhaden fishery is unwarranted

March 2, 2026 – The following is an opinion piece by Ben Landry, vice president of public affairs for Ocean Fleet Services, the parent company of Ocean Harvesters, originally published in the Baltimore Sun:

On Feb. 16, The Baltimore Sun published an editorial urging a moratorium on menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay (Virginia and Maryland have a small fish problem). Unfortunately, the piece contains errors and misleading claims that strongly suggest it was not independently researched, but instead repackaged long-running advocacy talking points from groups such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

Before endorsing what would amount to a shutdown of a historic fishery — and the hundreds of working waterfront jobs it supports — the editorial board owes readers something more than recycled press- release advocacy. Did the board reach out to Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission scientists or Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) biologists? Did it review the current stock status findings that explicitly state Atlantic menhaden are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring? Did it consider that the fishery is certified as sustainable under the Marine Stewardship Council program?

Several claims in the editorial need correction.

First, the editorial asserts a “reduction in the menhaden population” and suggests there is “too much evidence of overfishing.” That is demonstrably false. Marylandʼs own DNR juvenile striped bass survey reported last year that Atlantic menhaden were “widespread” in the Chesapeake Bay for the third consecutive year, with recent survey results among the strongest in decades.

ASMFCʼs benchmark findings are clear: Menhaden are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. And the fishery is MSC-certified for sustainability. Even last summerʼs menhaden die-offs — events The Sun itself has covered — underscore that there are significant menhaden concentrations in Maryland waters.

Second, the editorial claims that “more dead osprey chicks” are “starving from the reduction in the menhaden population,” and the photo caption amplifies an even stronger assertion: that Virginia “allows the killing of millions of this oily fish causing widespread osprey chick starvation” in tidal bay areas. That allegation is not based on science. Researchers have repeatedly cautioned against treating menhaden as a singular explanation for osprey outcomes. A 2024 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) presentation to the ASMFC and in a letter to Congress described osprey challenges as complex and multi-factor, noting a large long-term increase in the bayʼs osprey population before recent leveling. USGS has also made clear that osprey reproduction challenges are occurring in many places around the country — not uniquely tied to any one prey species, let alone one fishery.

Third, the editorial says striped bass “are in collapse” because the Chesapeake is a primary nursery. Striped bass are indeed struggling, and Maryland DNRʼs Young-of-Year Striped Bass Survey has documented below-average spawning success for the seventh consecutive year. But the editorial fails to acknowledge what ASMFC has documented about why striped bass are declining: The primary drivers are recreational overfishing (for much of the past decade), environmental conditions and disease — not menhaden harvest levels. The editorial also ignores that, until very recently, ASMFC found the recreational fishery overharvested striped bass for years; only recently has overfishing ended, while the stock remains overfished.

Fourth, the editorial proposes a moratorium “while a federally funded study takes place.” More science is always welcome, but “pause everything until science is finalized” is not how fisheries are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens framework or the interstate system that governs menhaden. Menhaden management already occurs through a formal, transparent ASMFC process. And there is already bay-focused scientific work underway: The National Science Foundation-affiliated Science Center for Marine Fisheries has funded a Chesapeake Bay menhaden research roadmap led by scientists from UMCES, VIMS and NOAA to inform any bay-specific cap with defensible science. A shutdown now — despite a healthy coastwide stock and clear findings that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring — would be an unnecessary and economically reckless “solution” looking for a problem.

Fifth, the editorial suggests the fishery can simply shift harvest elsewhere — “in Atlantic Ocean coastal waters … and in the Gulf of Mexico” — as if the bay closure would be painless. Weather conditions and migrations require access to the fish where they are and when they can be caught. That argument betrays a lack of understanding of fishing reality and is callous because it ignores the concentrated workforce and supply chain centered on Reedville, Virginia, and the Northern Neck — jobs with real wages, real benefits and real union protections that are not replaceable in those communities. A forced closure would hit working families first.

Finally, the editorial repeatedly misidentifies the company that harvests fish — another sign that basic research was not done. Omega Protein has not harvested for eight years. Since 2018, it has been a processor that manufactures products such as fish meal and fish oil from menhaden obtained from two sources. Most of the menhaden purchased by Omega Protein is caught by Ocean Harvesters, a majority-U.S.-owned fishing company employing U.S. captains and union fishermen — members of UFCW Local 400 — many from multi-generational fishing families, including minority fishermen. In addition, Omega Protein purchases from menhaden bait fishermen when market conditions are such that supply outstrips demand. If The Sun is going to editorialize about shutting down a fishery and disrupting a regional blue-collar economy, it should at least get the names and roles of the companies involved correct.

The Chesapeake Bay deserves thoughtful, science- based management — not policy-by-editorial fueled by activist narratives. The Sun should correct the record, engage directly with ASMFC and Maryland DNR scientists and treat working waterfront communities with the seriousness and respect they deserve.

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

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

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

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

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

What the record shows (brief)

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

Read the full analysis here

Examples of the inaccurate “recommendation” narrative (links)

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

Striped bass status quo remains as harvest reduction voted down

November 4, 2025 — The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission voted Oct. 29 to maintain the current striped bass management rules for 2026.

The board voted against a proposed 12% coast-wide cut in commercial and recreational harvest, which opponents said would have significant economic ramifications for the Chesapeake Bay area.

Without that reduction, organizations like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation are concerned the striped bass population will not rebuild by 2029, the target set after the species was declared overfished in 2019.

“It’s a requirement of the ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission) to rebuild that population to its target in 10 years… That is what the board itself has set forward as its own guidelines and targets,” Chesapeake Bay Foundation Executive Director Allison Colden said.

Though board members voted against the reduction at the Oct. 29 meeting, the fisheries commission granted Maryland the option to review and adjust its recreational fishing seasons through the Department of Natural Resources.

Read the full article at Southern Maryland News

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 (FTHRESHOLD) “would cause declines in biomass for more sensitive predator species, particularly striped bass.”  “As a result, … the probability of exceeding the ERP FTHRESHOLD 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

In response, Ocean Harvesters has issued the following:

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

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

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

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

 

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

Ocean Harvesters menhaden fishermen.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The menhaden fishery is currently:

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

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

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

Could planned federal funding cuts jeopardize Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay restoration plans?

April 28, 2025 — The Trump administration’s plans to propose budget cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) could jeopardize efforts to restore the health of Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF).

According to the CBF, the administration’s potential budget cuts would slash NOAA’s total budget by $1.7 billion, from $6.1 billion to $4.5 billion. It would also reduce funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service by approximately 30 percent.

How would the cuts affect the Chesapeake Bay?

The proposed budget plan would significantly reduce NOAA’s financial support and scientific leadership for Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.

Under the plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which currently operates with a budget of $1.1 billion, would be reduced to $789.3 million in fiscal year 2026 under the planned budget.

The NMFS houses NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office, which leads science initiatives across the region and works closely with the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program on restoration efforts, according to the CBF.

Read the full story at CBS News

US lawmakers propose transferring blue catfish inspections back to the FDA

March 27, 2025 — Recently introduced legislation meant to improve conservation in the Chesapeake Bay region of the United States would also reduce inspection requirements for blue catfish, making it easier to operate a commercial fishery.

“The bill would also enable more watermen to improve their bottom line by harvesting invasive blue catfish,” Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) Federal Director Keisha Sedlacek said in a statement. “This would help protect native Bay species and the seafood industry from this voracious predator while supporting the region’s economy.”

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

U.S. Geological Survey Presentation Raises Questions About Osprey-Menhaden Link Allegations

August 6, 2024 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

Today at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) summer meeting, the Menhaden Management Board heard a presentation on osprey populations from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists; considered but did not agree to a motion to start an addendum on additional commercial menhaden fishing restrictions in the Chesapeake Bay; and ultimately agreed, as a compromise, to create a working group to “consider and evaluate options for further precautionary management of Chesapeake Bay menhaden fisheries.”

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has issued a stunningly deceptive press release, mischaracterizing the tone of today’s ASMFC meeting and the action taken there. The CBF release suggests that the material presented by USGS overwhelmingly indicated a problem with osprey in the Chesapeake Bay, and that there was overwhelming support by ASMFC commissioners for additional regulation of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. Neither is true. The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition is issuing this release, together with the full audio of the meeting, to clarify the record. The full audio is available here.

Dr. Barnett Rattner and David Ziolkowski of the U.S. Geological Survey gave a presentation on the health of osprey populations from coast to coast. Mr. Ziolkowski noted that “in North America in the 1950s and 60s, osprey population started declining rapidly due to the effects of volcanic chlorine, pesticides like DDT, and it’s estimated that the Chesapeake Bay probably lost about half or more of its population.”

However, Mr. Ziolkowski explained that after measures were taken, including banning DDT, between 1966 and 2022, the eastern population of osprey increased by about 300%, and the Atlantic Coast population increased by about 587%. In the Chesapeake Bay it’s increased by about 1800% since 1960. He continued, “…what these numbers bear out is that osprey have made an astounding recovery by all accounts. The numbers are now in excess of historical numbers and in part that’s because they’ve returned to a world that’s very different than the world was before they started declining. There’s more suitable nesting structures. Water may be cleaner, et cetera.”

Mr. Ziolkowski did note that during the period from 2012 to 2022, “something’s going on,” as there has been a leveling off in the growth of the osprey populations in the mid-Atlantic. But he explained, “Care must be used when you’re interpreting these kinds of results and to understand what I mean, it’s helpful to look at osprey trends across the country. So here I’ll point out three things that I hope you take notice of in these graphs. On the left-hand side here, for example, California and Washington, opposite coast, you can see that there’s something going on in the same time period as there is here in Maryland, Virginia.”

Dr. Barnett Rattner and David Ziolkowski of the U.S. Geological Survey present a slide to the Menhaden Management Board showing that the recent leveling-off in Maryland and Virginia osprey populations, after years of explosive growth, is a phenomenon also being seen in states across the nation, on both the East and West Coast.

During the Q&A following the presentation, Commissioner Patrick Geer of Virginia, Chief of Fisheries Management at the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, noted that “Dr. [Bryan] Watts has done a survey in Virginia, for a number of years, going back to I believe 1993, which has shown the double crested cormorant population has increased 1416% in 25 years and brown pelicans have been about 882%. Now those species that are primarily piscivores…they’re competing for the same food source…Maybe the [osprey] nests aren’t surviving, maybe they’re moving out and these two species are moving in? Is that possible?” To which Dr. Rattner replied “Yes, it’s possible, certainly.”

After the presentation by the USGS scientists, Commissioner Lynn Waller Fegley of Maryland, Director of Fishing and Boating Services at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, made a motion to initiate an addendum to the Atlantic Menhaden Interstate Fishery Management Plan to consider Chesapeake Bay-specific management options for menhaden purse seine vessels larger than 300 gross tons in order to support the need of piscivorous birds and fish during critical points of their life cycle, and include options for seasonal closures of Chesapeake Bay waters, but not consider changes to the current Bay cap of 51,000 metric tons.

It became immediately apparent that the board was divided on this proposal.

The provision targeting purse seine vessels over 300 tons was obviously included to target the commercial menhaden reduction fishery, which in Virginia is operated by Ocean Harvesters and supplies menhaden to Reedville-based processer Omega Protein. This was questioned by Commissioner Proxy Eric Reid of Rhode Island, who asked if the motion wasn’t inherently flawed, since although there are carrier vessels over 300 tons, those vessels get their fish from pairs of small purse seine boats, meaning that the motion accomplished nothing. Mr. Reid’s conjecture was confirmed by a member of the delegation from Virginia.

Commissioner Proxy Nichola Meserve of Massachusetts, Fishery Policy Analyst at the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, raised concerns about “diving immediately into an addendum process,” noting that other addenda in the past began “with a work group, a board work group that discussed the issues and the concerns that developed potential strategies.

After much procedural wrangling, there were two votes to postpone action on the motion, one until the October meeting and another indefinitely. Both of those votes tied 9-9. When it became apparent that the motion to initiate an addendum had reached a stalemate, Commissioner Proxy Dr. Allison Colden, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Maryland Executive Director, offered a substitute motion “to establish a board work group to consider and evaluate options for further precautionary management of Chesapeake Bay menhaden fisheries, including time and area closures, to be protective of piscivorous birds and fish during critical points of their life cycle.

The board members accepted this compromise unanimously by acclamation, without a roll call, and the working group is expected to report the results of their discussion to the Menhaden Management Board at its October 2024 meeting.

“Those attending the ASMFC’s Menhaden Management Board meeting in person or listening online could only come away with one clear message from the respected researchers at USGS, and that is the osprey’s numbers have dramatically increased and any challenges that the seabirds face are complex and multi-faceted, occurring in numerous locations on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and cannot be blamed on the menhaden harvest in the Chesapeake Bay,” stated Ben Landry, Vice President of Public Affairs for Ocean Fleet Services and spokesperson for Ocean Harvesters. “To state otherwise is wholly dishonest, but that is commonplace for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and its decades-long history of false and hyperbolic statements on menhaden fisheries.”

The menhaden fishery has long been attacked by those who refuse to accept the science-based conclusions of respected government agencies and independent assessment bodies. However, it is important to remember that since 2020, after a three-year, peer-reviewed effort, with input from both industry and environmental conservation groups, menhaden has been managed using ecological reference points that account for menhaden’s role as a forage fish throughout its range.

When the ecological reference points were adopted, Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker stated in a release: “This is a historic day for fisheries management. Menhaden have been called the most important fish in the sea for good reason. Menhaden are an essential part of the diet of numerous fish species including striped bass, along with dolphins, whales, osprey and other seabirds.”

In 2020, Chris Moore, Senior Regional Ecosystem Scientist for CBF, wrote in the Bay Journal, “Striped bass, of all the predators studied, were shown to be the most sensitive to changes in the menhaden population. Therefore, adopting ecological reference points that protect striped bass will also protect other predator species that rely less on menhaden.”

Additionally:

  • In 2022, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission concluded there was no evidence that menhaden were being overfished along the Atlantic coast.
  • The Marine Stewardship Council in 2019 certified the Atlantic menhaden fishery as sustainable.

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.