Saving Seafood

Seagrass swap could reshape Chesapeake Bay food web

September 5, 2025 — The following story originally appeared on the website for W&M’s Batten School & VIMS. – Ed.

Beneath the surface of the Chesapeake Bay, a subtle but dramatic shift is taking place as eelgrass gives way to its warmer-water relative, widgeon grass. A new study from researchers at William & Mary’s Batten School & VIMS shows that this seagrass swap could have ecological impacts across the Bay’s food webs, fisheries and ecosystem functions.

Published in Marine Ecology Progress Series, the study reveals that while both seagrass species offer valuable habitat, they support marine life in very different ways. The researchers estimate that the continued shift from eelgrass to widgeon grass could lead to a 63% reduction in the total quantity of invertebrate biomass living in seagrass meadows in the bay by 2060.

“Several factors including water quality, rising temperatures and human development are threatening eelgrass in the Chesapeake Bay. In its place, particularly in the middle bay, widgeon grass has expanded due to its ability to tolerate warmer, more variable conditions,” said Associate Professor Chris Patrick, who is also director of the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Monitoring & Restoration Program at the Batten School of Coastal & Marine Sciences & VIMS. “However, the two grasses provide structurally distinct habitats that shape the animals living within.”

Read the full article at W&M’s News

New Restrictions Proposed for Striped Bass

August 21, 2025 — With hopes for improvement in the striped bass population fading, officials are looking to further tighten fishing restrictions. This is Don Rush. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is looking at a further 12% reduction in both the commercial catch and for recreational anglers. In a weekly series of Bay Journal, we talk with associate editor and senior writer Tim Wheeler.

“And they saw a big jump last year, particularly in the recreational catch that worried them a little bit and it made them concerned that they were not going to meet their target for rebuilding the stock by 2029 to what these fisheries experts consider a sustainable level. They’ve been looking at various options for requiring further reductions. And the commission’s striped bass management board when it met August 6th, agreed on an addendum to the fishery management plan for the East coast. That would require about a 12% reduction in overall catch for both recreational and commercial sectors starting next year,” Wheeler said.

So what are they looking at there?

Read the full article at Delmarva Public Media

New Chesapeake striped bass fishery plan sparks debate

August 11, 2025 — The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission approved Addendum III for public comment, introducing a new plan aimed at rebuilding the Chesapeake Bay’s striped bass population by 2029.

The management plan includes updated commercial quotas and recreational fishing regulations designed to protect the species, which has shown signs of decline, particularly among younger fish in the Chesapeake Bay.

Mike Luisi of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources said the plan focuses on increasing the population of young striped bass, which spend their early years in the bay before joining the migratory adult population offshore.

Read the full article at WBOC

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.

USDA announces USD 6 million to increase catfish production around Chesapeake Bay

August 8, 2025 — The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced USD 6 million (EUR 5.2 million) in grant funding to increase catfish processing in the Chesapeake Bay region as part of an ongoing state and federal effort to manage the invasive species.

First introduced as a recreational fish in the 1960s, blue catfish quickly spread throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, predating on and taking resources from native species and upsetting local ecosystems. State and federal governments, as well as local nonprofit organizations, have worked to remove catfish from the waters, incentivizing fishers to land more of the invasive species, encouraging consumers to eat more, and finding new applications for the fish.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Omega Protein urges scientific review before menhaden fishery cuts

July 31, 2025 — Menhaden processor Omega Protein and its harvesting partner Ocean Harvesters have urged the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to conduct further scientific reviews before considering potential reductions to the Chesapeake Bay menhaden fishery.

In a letter to the ASMFC, Omega Protein Senior Scientific Advisor Peter Himchak argued that recent concerns linking menhaden fishing to declines in osprey populations are being overstated, calling for a broader investigation into possible causes.

Himchak, a former fisheries biologist with the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife and longtime advisor to the ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, criticized what he called an “inordinate amount of focus on menhaden generally, and the reduction fishery in particular,” in discussions of osprey declines.

In particular, he pushed back against recommendations made by the ASMFC’s Work Group on Precautionary Management in the Chesapeake Bay, calling them “draconian” and warning that implementing restrictions without clear evidence of depleted menhaden stocks or proven impacts on osprey risks harming an industry that supports hundreds of jobs and has operated for over 150 years.

Read the full article at Aqua Feed

Omega Protein and Ocean Harvesters Urge Science-Based Review Before Imposing New Menhaden Restrictions

July 29, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

In a letter submitted to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), Peter Himchak, Senior Scientific Advisor to Omega Protein, warned that “there has been an inordinate amount of focus on menhaden generally, and the reduction fishery in particular” in discussions about recent osprey declines in the Chesapeake Bay.

Omega Protein, which processes menhaden into fishmeal, fish oil, and related nutritional products, is supplied by Ocean Harvesters under a long-term harvesting agreement. Himchak submitted the letter on behalf of the company ahead of the ASMFC’s Summer Meeting.

Himchak, who served for 39 years as a fisheries biologist with the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife and as a long-time advisor to both the ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, sat on the ASMFC’s Atlantic Menhaden Technical Committee and Stock Assessment Sub-Committee from 1988 until 2006.

In the letter, Himchak criticized the ASMFC’s Work Group on Precautionary Management in Chesapeake Bay for proposing “draconian management recommendations ‘without determining if there is or is not an adequate supply of menhaden to support predatory demand in the Bay.’” He warned that moving forward with such actions without first determining whether there are, in fact, fewer menhaden in the Bay or whether the fishery has any impact on osprey “risks gravely impacting a more than 150-year-old industry and hundreds of jobs while doing nothing to improve the osprey situation.”

Himchak wrote that the ASMFC’s Technical Committee (TC) already has a significant workload in advance of the Commission’s Annual Meeting, but raised four areas of scientific inquiry the TC could investigate that would provide the Board with more complete information. 1) He asked whether “the phenomenon of reduced osprey production [is] confined to the times and areas in which the menhaden reduction fishery operates,” referencing USGS data showing declines in osprey abundance in coastal areas of multiple states—not just the Chesapeake—and increases in interior regions. He also noted that the fishery does not begin fishing until May or later—after migrant ospreys arrive in the region from late February to early March and begin building nests from mid-March to mid-April—raising questions about how the fishery could influence osprey’s months-earlier decisions about where to nest.

2) He wrote that there have been sizable increases in populations of multiple menhaden-dependent predators since at least the turn of the century, and that a stomach contents analysis of striped bass, which are only somewhat dependent on menhaden, indicated they “are not starving and would be considered healthy.” Therefore, he asked, “is it more likely that ospreys are being outcompeted or that the reduction fishery uniquely impacts osprey?”

3) Regarding eagle-osprey interactions, he noted a recent Maryland DNR release announcing “large increases in the state’s bald eagle population.” He referenced myriad studies finding that bald eagles are “kleptoparasitic”—a term used to describe their well-documented habit of attacking hunting osprey to steal their food or prey on adults, young, and eggs. Citing a study from Voyageurs National Park, he wrote that “increased numbers of eagles were associated with a reduction in the numbers of osprey nests, their nesting success and heronry size,” and asked whether “issues of competition and depredation [can] be ruled out as a cause of osprey’s lack of breeding success.” He further pointed to “significant scientific and anecdotal evidence of the dominant and adverse impacts eagles have on osprey.”

That concern was echoed in a newly released Saving Seafood special report titled “Bald Eagle Recovery in Chesapeake Bay Raises Red Flags for Osprey.” The report compiled over three decades of peer-reviewed research, field observations, and published accounts documenting instances in which eagles had a negative impact on osprey populations. In one study, researchers found “eagle abundance was negatively associated with nest reuse (i.e., persistence) and success of ospreys.” Significantly, the researchers found “little evidence of bottom-up limitations,” such as poor weather or declining fish stocks, and emphasized the role of eagle aggression, including harassment and food theft. While this body of research does not prove the resurgence of bald eagles in the Chesapeake to be the cause of osprey reproduction issues, it does indicate it is a possibility deserving of further investigation.

The full report is available at: https://www.savingseafood.org/science/bald-eagle-recovery-in-chesapeake-bay-raises-red-flags-for-osprey

4) Himchak also asked the Technical Committee to consider whether osprey foraging success is being affected by climate-driven environmental changes, including storm frequency, shoreline hardening, warming waters, or hypoxia. Citing a 2024 study by Bryan Watts, he noted that “deliveries of all forage species to osprey nests declined steadily from 1974 to 2021,” and asked whether “ospreys’ apparent lack of foraging success is tied to changes in local conditions that are impacting either local abundance of forage or osprey’s hunting success.”

He concluded the letter by writing, “The commission must be guided by science. Precipitous actions, taken in the name of precaution, are not always harmless. Neither Ocean Harvesters nor Omega Protein can survive without the current low level of access to the menhaden resource in the Bay. There simply are not enough ‘fishable days’ – that is, days where the weather and sea conditions allow vessels to operate – in a year to safely conduct a profitable fishery solely in the ocean. The menhaden fishery is managed in the most conservative manner in its 150 year or so history, and the reduction fishery is operating at its lowest sustained levels – in the Bay and overall – for as long as we have reliable records (i.e., since the 1950s). Precaution is already the policy. Before taking actions that could cause irreversible economic harm to this historic fishery, the Board should ensure that all reasonable avenues of inquiry into the issues facing osprey are explored.”

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.

Bald Eagle Recovery in Chesapeake Bay Raises Red Flags for Osprey

July 28, 2025 –  The Chesapeake Bay is once again teeming with bald eagles, a testament to decades of successful conservation efforts. A recent feature by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), “A Soaring Success: Maryland’s Bald Eagle Population Recovery” by science writer Joe Zimmermann, highlights this remarkable comeback.

In 1977, a mere 44 breeding pairs of bald eagles were recorded in Maryland. Today, that figure has soared to over 1,400, according to estimates from the Maryland Bird Conservation Partnership. This dramatic rebound has established the Chesapeake Bay as a national stronghold for bald eagles, boasting the highest concentration of breeding pairs outside Alaska.

This recovery is largely attributed to sustained, science-driven policy. The 1972 federal ban on the pesticide DDT, which caused reproductive failure and eggshell thinning, was a pivotal moment. In Maryland, the 1984 Chesapeake Bay Protection Act further safeguarded critical habitat within 1,000 feet of tidal waters. These combined measures helped restore nesting conditions and bolster survival rates.

The scale and speed of this recovery have made bald eagles a symbol not just of national pride, but also of effective conservation action. “Bald eagles are a very good example of what happens when you find the solutions and take action, and now you can look at how they’ve come back,” said DNR conservation ecologist Dave Brinker.

Today, bald eagles nest in every Maryland county and in Baltimore City. The Bay supports not only year-round resident eagles but also seasonal visitors from both the North and South. “Through the year, we have three pretty unique populations of bald eagles,” Brinker explained. “There are local birds that are here all year long. Then southern breeding eagles disperse to the Chesapeake Bay to spend summer here because food resources are so good. And in the winter, northern populations that need a warmer place, they come down to the Chesapeake Bay.”

 

Bald Eagle Recovery and Its Interspecies Consequences

 

While the recovery of the bald eagle in North America, particularly along the Chesapeake Bay, is a significant conservation milestone, its resurgence raises questions about its impact on other piscivorous bird species that have also been rebounding from decades of decline. Chief among these is the osprey, a fish-eating raptor that shares habitat and prey with bald eagles throughout coastal and inland waters. The Chesapeake Bay, now home to one of the largest bald eagle populations in the continental United States, is also crucial osprey habitat, making it an ideal region for observing interactions between the two species.

In recent years, environmental organizations like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and sportfishing advocates such as the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership have repeatedly claimed that industrial menhaden fishing is the primary driver of osprey reproductive failures in the Bay. Their public campaigns, regulatory letters, and media statements link declining nest success to a perceived, yet scientifically undocumented, drop in Atlantic menhaden availability—a key prey species for ospreys during chick-rearing season. Much of this advocacy draws on research by Dr. Bryan Watts of the Center for Conservation Biology at William & Mary, whose studies have indicated increased nest failure in parts of the lower Chesapeake. However, even Watts has cautioned against definitive conclusions. In a 2024 Associated Press article, he stated, “We do not know why menhaden have become less available to osprey,” and suggested climate change as a possible factor.

Beyond climate shifts, other ecological dynamics may be at play, but the menhaden-focused narrative has recently overshadowed attention to other potential pressures. Given the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ announcement that the Bay now hosts one of the nation’s largest bald eagle populations, interspecies competition deserves closer scrutiny—particularly food competition stemming from kleptoparasitism, the well-documented behavior in which eagles steal fish from ospreys. These interactions, studied for decades by field biologists and ornithologists, warrant renewed attention in light of the bald eagle’s increasing population.

While the ecological relationships between bald eagles and ospreys are not yet fully understood, evidence from multiple regions suggests that competitive pressures—especially kleptoparasitism and nest harassment by eagles—may hinder osprey nesting success in areas with high eagle densities. It is possible that the recovery of one iconic raptor is, in part, coming at the expense of another. These dynamics deserve greater consideration from scientists, wildlife managers, and policymakers.

 

Top-Down Pressure: A 35-Year Body of Research Shows Bald Eagle Competition May Threaten Osprey Nesting Success

 

As bald eagle populations have steadily rebounded across North America, particularly in strongholds like the Chesapeake Bay, a longstanding body of scientific research suggests that their recovery may come at the expense of other raptors, especially ospreys. For more than three decades, field biologists and ornithologists have documented the effects of interspecific competition and kleptoparasitism, the act of stealing food, as a factor contributing to osprey nesting failures.

One of the most comprehensive analyses of these dynamics comes from a 2019 study published in the Journal of Animal Ecology titled “Top-down effects of repatriating bald eagles hinder jointly recovering competitors.” Led by Jennyffer Cruz and co-authored by Steve K. Windels, Wayne E. Thogmartin, Shawn M. Crimmins, Leland H. Grim, James H. Larson, and Benjamin Zuckerberg, the study evaluated 26 years of nesting data in Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. The researchers found that as bald eagle numbers increased due to intensive protections, the populations of ospreys and great blue herons declined.

“Bald eagles are top predators and a flagship species of conservation that have benefited from intensive protection,” they wrote, “but this likely hindered the recovery of ospreys and herons.” The study documented that “eagle abundance was negatively associated with nest reuse (i.e., persistence) and success of ospreys,” and concluded: “The top-down effects of returning bald eagles were the main predictors of declining nesting demographics for ospreys and herons resulting in their failed recoveries.” Importantly, the authors found “little evidence of bottom-up limitations,” such as poor weather, habitat loss, or declining fish stocks, implicating competition and interference from eagles as a primary driver.

The literature documenting these dynamics stretches back decades.

In a 1994 field note published in The Journal of Raptor Research, Professors J. MacDonald and N.R. Seymour of St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia documented a lethal encounter in which a bald eagle pursued and killed an adult male osprey that was carrying a white perch. A second eagle joined the chase, and after a brief pursuit, one eagle seized the osprey midair, dragged it to shore, and ate it. The authors believed the attack originated as an act of kleptoparasitism—food theft—a behavior they note is well documented between eagles and ospreys and which they described as “a common occurrence.” They also referenced a second lethal attack, described by Flemming and Bancroft in 1990, in which a bald eagle attacked an osprey nestling shortly after it had received a fish.

In 2013, four U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) staff members working at Lake Sonoma in Geyserville, California, documented what was believed to be the first officially recorded case of “cooperative kleptoparasitism” in which a pair of bald eagles worked together to steal a fish from an osprey. Their observations were formally published in 2014 in The Journal of Raptor Research and summarized in a March 20, 2014, article on Army.mil, which likened the coordinated and calculated nature of the predation to something out of Jurassic Park. “Rarely have humans seen them cooperating to hunt as a pair,” USACE ecologist Wade Eakle explained. “This was the first time we witnessed them actually cooperating to steal, from another species.” The two eagles forced the osprey to drop its trout, after which the larger female swiftly seized the fish and flew off. Rangers had been monitoring the nesting pair since 2001, but this behavior marked a milestone in understanding the extent of eagle dominance over other raptors.

Evidence for this behavior also includes a 1988 study by Dennis G. Jorde and G.R. Lingle, published in the Journal of Field Ornithology, which observed repeat patterns of interspecific kleptoparasitism along the Platte River in Nebraska. Their findings indicated that bald eagles not only routinely stole food from other raptors but developed learned strategies for doing so efficiently, particularly during important foraging periods.

Even outside peer-reviewed journals, naturalists and field reporters have provided consistent anecdotal corroboration. BirdWatching Magazine similarly observes: “Bald Eagles are known to steal fish from other birds, particularly Ospreys. They will aggressively chase Ospreys in flight until the Osprey drops its catch, which the eagle will then snatch midair or retrieve from the water.” Another article in the same publication added, “It is common for ospreys and eagles to be in the same hunting grounds. As the more aggressive raptors, eagles will often fight the Osprey and force it to let go of the captured prey. The eagle will typically swoop in to catch the stolen prey.” The Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s All About Birds guide echoes these observations: “A Bald Eagle will harass a hunting Osprey until the smaller raptor drops its prey in midair, where the eagle swoops it up”, a classic example of kleptoparasitism.

Collectively, these studies and field reports spanning decades point to a clear and well-established pattern: as eagle populations recover and concentrate in resource-rich areas like the Chesapeake Bay, their aggressive behavior and dominance in the food web may have measurable negative consequences for ospreys. The repeated harassment and food theft increase energetic costs for osprey parents, reduce feeding efficiency, and may contribute to nest failures.

While the recovery of the bald eagle in the Chesapeake Bay region is unquestionably a landmark conservation success story, it does not exist in ecological isolation. As concerns continue to emerge about osprey reproductive success in key habitats like the Bay, it is increasingly important to view this predator’s return within the broader dynamics of interspecies competition. Over the past 35 years, a robust and diverse body of scientific literature—supported by peer-reviewed studies, field notes, and firsthand accounts—has documented the kleptoparasitic behavior of bald eagles, particularly their tendency to steal fish from ospreys and, at times, directly harass or even kill them. This behavior, while natural, may contribute to the energetic costs and nest failures observed in osprey populations where eagle densities are high.

Even Benjamin Franklin, in an often-cited letter, criticized the selection of the bald eagle as the national bird due in part to its scavenging habits and its theft of fish from “the fishing hawk,” known today as osprey.

For my own part I wish the bald eagle had not been chosen as the representative of our country. … he watches the labour of the fishing hawk; and when that diligent bird has at length taken a fish, and is bearing it to his nest for the support of his mate and young ones, the bald eagle pursues him, and takes it from him.

While his concerns were framed with a satirical flourish, he anticipated a tension now supported by decades of ecological research. As wildlife managers and policymakers evaluate recent reports of declining osprey productivity, it is essential that they consider not only fishery-related factors but also the well-documented competitive interactions between these two raptor species.

 

References

 

MAWS Act Targets Blue Catfish in Chesapeake Bay

July 14, 2025 — Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) and Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth (D-MD-03), alongside Representatives Rob Wittman (R-VA-01) and Jen Kiggans (R-VA-02), introduced the bipartisan Mitigation Action and Watermen Support (MAWS) Act on Monday, July 7, 2025. The legislation aims to address the ecological and economic threats posed by invasive blue catfish in the Chesapeake Bay by establishing a two-year pilot program within the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office to develop a new market for the fish in the pet and animal food industry.

The MAWS Act will provide grants to pet and animal food manufacturers to incentivize watermen to harvest blue catfish, while establishing infrastructure for transportation, processing, and manufacturing. NOAA will collect data on the program’s ecological and economic impacts, including effects on blue catfish populations, native species, watermen’s livelihoods, and market responses. The agency will report findings to Congress, offering best practices and recommendations for similar programs in other watersheds.

“The Chesapeake Bay is the beating heart of Maryland,” Congressman Hoyer said. “We have a responsibility to look after the Bay, its ecosystems, and the communities that it sustains. I’m proud to join my friend Sarah Elfreth – a longtime advocate for the Chesapeake Bay – on this vital legislation to protect the health of our public waters.”

“The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States, with more coastline across the Watershed than the entire coast of California. It is a pillar of our local recreation, seafood, and tourism economies,” said Congresswoman Elfreth. “Invasive blue catfish pose a direct ecological and economic threat to our Bay, which is why I am introducing the bipartisan MAWS Act alongside Congressman Wittman to address the damage inflicted by blue catfish, while also strengthening our local seafood economy and providing a new source of protein to pets nationwide.”

Could pet food be the answer to the blue catfish problem in the Chesapeake Bay?

July 8, 2025 — The Chesapeake Bay has a lot of blue catfish, and that’s a problem.

Now, lawmakers have a plan to see if the invasive fish can be used as pet food.

A bipartisan bill, introduced in Congress, is aimed at getting blue catfish out of the bay and into the pet food industry.

Blue catfish have no natural predators in the Chesapeake Bay, can live up to 20 years, and weigh up to 100 pounds. They prey on economically important species like blue crabs, rockfish, striped bass, and oysters.

Read the full article at WMAR