Saving Seafood

US lawmakers advance bill reauthorizing NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office

July 17, 2026 — U.S. representatives on the House Committee on Natural Resources voted to advance a bill reauthorizing NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office on 15 July.

“The House just took a key step toward investment in the science, restoration, and education that’s essential to the Chesapeake Bay’s recovery,” Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) Senior Policy Director Keisha Sedlacek said in a statement. “We’re grateful to House leaders for advancing the WATERS Act and look forward to action in the Senate on the companion bill.”

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Editorial: Menhaden study should provide data needed for bay management

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

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

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

Read the full article at The Virginian Pilot 

VIRGINIA: Lawmakers approve funding of menhaden study

June 30, 2026 — The Virginia General Assembly in Richmond, Va., officially passed on June 29 fourteen budget amendments to the states $205 billion biennial budget including $2 million for a comprehensive study on Atlantic Menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.

The Assembly had presented a proposed budget to Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger on June 22 that did not include funds for the study. This prompted political finger pointing from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) at Omega Protein Inc. and Ocean Harvesters, the Reedville, Va., firms involved in the only large reduction menhaden fishery on Atlantic Coast.

CBF accused the Reedville firms of using “political pressure” to persuade legislators not to approve research funding in the state budget. Promptly, Omega Protein and Ocean Harvesters issued a news release adamantly denying the use of “political pressure” to discourage funding of menhaden research.

The release stated “Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein flatly deny playing any role in the Virginia General Assembly’s decision not to include funding to study the Chesapeake Bay’s Atlantic menhaden population in the two-year state budget. These false claims were made by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an organization that has misled Virginians as part of a special interest campaign against the industry for more than two decades.”

Read the full article at National Fisherman

ASMFC Defends Menhaden Delay as Debate Over Chesapeake Science Intensifies

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

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

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

Read the full article at Seafoodnews.com

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Peddles a False Menhaden Crisis—Not Science

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

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

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

1) CBF is spinning a responsible pause as a crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Maryland Commissioner H. Russell Dize rejected scapegoating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Advocacy shouldn’t substitute for evidence

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

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

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

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

Menhaden coalition pushes back on claims tied to Mid-Atlantic fish wash-up

March 9, 2026 — A recent fish wash-up along beaches from Cape Henry, Va., to Nags Head, N.C., has reignited tensions between environmental advocates and the menhaden industry, with the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition accusing the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) of mischaracterizing the event to attack Virginia’s reduction fishery.

In a statement released on March 6, the coalition criticized comments by CBF’s Will Poston linking the die-off to broader concerns about the Atlantic menhaden fishery, calling the claims “misleading” and part of a broader campaign against the industry.

“The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is using this natural event to make false accusations and continue the campaign of anti-menhaden misinformation,” the coalition stated, arguing that the beach wash-up was unrelated to fishing activity.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

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