Chesapeake Bay Archives - Page 3 of 42

VIRGINIA: Protesters harass menhaden fishermen

September 1, 2026 — Chesapeake Bay menhaden fishing protesters in small craft continue to harass Ocean Harvesters’ boats and fishermen by circling in front of the firms’ steamers attempting to keep boats from making sets.

Ocean Harvesters of Reedville, Va., harvests menhaden and sells it to Omega Protein, also located in Reedville. Omega Protein buys the fish from Ocean Harvesters and processes them into fish meal, fish oil, and other products.

Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein are part of the only large menhaden reduction fishery in operation on the East Coast of the United States and have drawn protests from environmental groups throughout the mid-Atlantic who want to prevent menhaden reduction fishing on Chesapeake Bay.

“Over the past three years we have seen a few dozen of these recreational fishing boats racing to get in front of us and just circling so we either can’t get to where we want to go, or to try and block us from setting out nets,” says Monty Deihl chief executive officer of Ocean Harvesters. “These go hand-in-hand with the threats we get on social media and the coordinated effort to disrupt our operations.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

Record Cobia Tournament Shows a Chesapeake Predator Thriving Alongside Menhaden

August 31, 2026 — Congratulations are in order for the winners and participants in the 2026 Big Man’s Cobia Bonanza.

The ninth annual tournament was held August 14–15 in the Chesapeake Bay, with events based in Norfolk and weigh-ins at Little Creek. By the organizers’ account, it was a record year, with more than 100 boats participating and a top prize of over $38,000, and two runner-up $12,000 prizes. The organizers summed up the weekend with the declaration: “We put Virginia Cobia fishing in the Chesapeake Bay back on top!”

That is worth celebrating. It is also worth considering in the continuing debate over whether the Chesapeake Bay has enough menhaden to support its predators.

Cobia are large predators that spend the summer feeding in Chesapeake waters. Menhaden are part of their prey base and an important forage fish in the same waters where cobia thrive. Scientists and Bay fishing organizations alike have identified menhaden as an important prey species for cobia, and menhaden have traditionally been a preferred cobia bait.

That makes this year’s tournament particularly interesting; the success of a major Chesapeake predator that consumes menhaden is difficult to reconcile with sweeping claims that the Bay lacks sufficient forage for its predators.

The contrast with striped bass is instructive.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission currently classifies Atlantic cobia as not overfished, with overfishing not occurring. Striped bass are also important predators of menhaden, but their stock has followed a different path. In 2024, the peer-reviewed striped bass stock assessment found the stock was overfished. The stock is currently managed with restrictions designed to reduce fishing mortality and rebuild the population.

That history does not mean forage is irrelevant to striped bass, but it does mean discussions about their condition should acknowledge a well-established factor: fishing mortality on striped bass themselves was too high for years.

Menhaden, meanwhile, are already managed with their ecological role in mind. The ASMFC uses ecological reference points specifically designed to account for menhaden as forage and the needs of predators. The Atlantic menhaden stock itself is classified as not overfished, with overfishing not occurring.

Taken together, these facts suggest Chesapeake predator dynamics are more complicated than simply claiming there are not enough menhaden. Cobia and striped bass share the same broader ecosystem and both consume menhaden, yet their stock conditions are very different.

That comparison does not mean menhaden are evenly distributed throughout the Chesapeake Bay or that every predator has equal access to forage at all times. Menhaden are highly migratory schooling fish whose presence in any particular place changes with season, movement and environmental conditions.

Questions about local menhaden movement, seasonal abundance and predator access deserve continued study. And that work is happening.

The federal government, Virginia, and the menhaden industry are all supporting research to better understand menhaden movement, seasonal abundance, predator consumption and fishery interactions in the Chesapeake Bay. Congress has funded Bay-specific research, Virginia has committed funding for work led by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), and the industry is supporting collaborative research involving VIMS, the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory and NOAA.

That is how unresolved questions should be addressed: through cooperative science, not through simple assumptions.

In the meantime, what happened at this year’s Cobia Bonanza deserves attention.

Congratulations to the winners. Their success is a reminder that the Chesapeake Bay forage story may be considerably healthier than some of the rhetoric surrounding menhaden would have us believe.

Debate over menhaden fishery continues as it gains national media attention

August 20, 2026 — An ongoing debate over the future of the U.S. Atlantic menhaden fishery has gained national media attention, with the industry pushing back against NGOs and activists.

The Washington Post recently published an opinion piece by Mark Robichaux – a former Wall Street Journal reporter – that reviewed recent back-and-forth over the nation’s menhaden fishery and its claimed impacts on the wider environment, which includes accusations it is responsible for a decline in osprey populations and that it is diminishing an important forage species, resulting in declines in predators like striped bass.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

MARYLAND: Governor Wes Moore announces state surpassed pollution reduction goals under Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement

August 13, 2026. — Maryland Gov. Wes Moore announced the state has successfully met or surpassed nearly all of its pollution reduction targets set under the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Based on the most recent information from the Chesapeake Bay Program’s pollution model, Maryland achieved 100 percent of its sediment reduction goal. Additionally, the model said the state completed its phosphorus reduction goal and 99 percent of the nitrogen reduction goal from 2009 to 2025. Moore said the model was updated this year based on data from 2025.

Read the full article at CoastTV

ASMFC petitioned to consider menhaden reallocation, will make decision on fishery cap in Chesapeake

August 13, 2026 — The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) is being petitioned to initiate a reallocation process for the menhaden fishery as it also considers its options to reduce the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap by up to 50 percent.

The menhaden fishery is spread across the U.S. east coast, and allocated across several U.S. states, with each state getting a different share of the fishery. Historically the U.S. state of Virginia has received the largest portion of the quota, and has also been the largest fisher of the species, with companies like Omega Protein and Ocean Harvesters processing and harvesting most of the catch, respectively.

Now, conservation groups are petitioning the ASMFC to reallocate the quota of the fishery, claiming the shifting patterns of the species mean the quotas should shift too.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Public will get to weigh in on proposed changes to Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest

August 7, 2026 — Officials who regulate the Atlantic menhaden industry have debated in recent years how to balance the historic fishery in the Chesapeake Bay with growing concerns about the ecosystem.

On Wednesday, they took their latest step. The Menhaden Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission advanced a document for public comment with potential changes to harvesting menhaden in the bay.

The commission helps manage fisheries along the East Coast, including 15 states from Florida to Maine.

The proposal outlines options for cutting the amount of menhaden the industry can catch by up to 50% and spreading the harvest more evenly throughout the season.

Ocean Harvesters, the company that harvests menhaden in the bay, said in a statement that the proposal is “a solution in search of a problem.”

“The addendum assembles observations, uncertainties and hypotheticals but never demonstrates that Chesapeake Bay menhaden availability has declined because of the reduction fishery or that the proposed measures would produce any biological benefit,” the company stated.

Ocean Harvesters, which operates a fishing fleet to supply Omega Protein, harvests up to 51,000 metric tons of menhaden in the bay each year using large walls of netting called purse seines. Omega processes, or “reduces,” them into fishmeal and fish oil at a plant in Reedville.

Environmentalists and sportfishers believe purse seines are removing too many menhaden, affecting species that rely on them, such as striped bass and osprey. They want the reduction industry to be banned from the bay or more heavily restricted.

The public comment period will run through September and October, with the board meeting again in November to consider final approval, according to the commission’s website.

Read the full article at WHRO

ASMFC advances Atlantic menhaden proposal

August 6, 2026 — The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has voted to advance Draft Addendum II to Amendment 3 of the Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan for public comment, reviving a proposal that had been delayed earlier this year as commissioners sought additional work on the document.

The Aug. 5 vote by the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board marks the next step in a management debate that has divided industry representatives, conservation organizations and fisheries managers over whether additional restrictions are needed in the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery.

The company cited comments made during the meeting by Virginia ASMFC Commissioner Adele McClure, who questioned whether the public comment process should move forward before additional research is completed.

McClure also pointed to ongoing research efforts that she said could provide managers with more complete scientific information before making future management decisions.

“We finally got that funded in Virginia at $4.5 million. We have three studies, and this could guide us in the context of good science, which is good for both the public, for union workers, and the fisheries,” she said

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Board Approves Draft Addendum II for Public Comment Draft Addendum Considers Changes to Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap

August 6, 2026 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board approved Draft Addendum II to Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for public comment. The Draft Addendum considers options to reduce the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap (Bay Cap) by up to 50% and distribute the cap more evenly throughout the fishing season. The options aim to alleviate a concentration of effort that may be affecting other fisheries within the Bay and other potential ecological impacts.

The Draft Addendum was initiated in response to concerns regarding declining pound net harvest and catch per unit effort in the Bay in recent years, coinciding with an increase in the concentration of reduction harvest in the summer months, and the possible downstream effects on menhaden predators.

The Draft Addendum also includes options that link the Bay Cap to the coastwide total allowable catch to maintain a more fixed proportion between the two, as well as options to distribute the Bay Cap into three quota periods to prevent a concentration of reduction harvest in the spring and summer of the fishing season.

A press release will follow with details on the availability of the document for public comment, the public hearing schedule, and how to submit written comments. This information will also be available on the Atlantic Menhaden Draft Addendum II Action Tracker webpage. A public comment form will also be available as another option to submit input on the Draft Addendum’s specific options.

The Board will meet to review submitted comments and consider final action on the addendum in November 2026 at the Commission’s Annual Meeting in Newport, Rhode Island. For more information, please contact James Boyle, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at jboyle@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.

VIRGINIA: ASMFC Advances Menhaden Addendum for Public Comment Despite No Clear Definition of the Problem It Seeks to Solve

August 5, 2026 — The following was released by Ocean Harvesters:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board today voted to release Draft Addendum II to Amendment 3 of the Atlantic Menhaden Interstate Fishery Management Plan for public comment, despite the document’s failure to establish a demonstrated biological problem necessitating the new restrictions it proposes.

The draft addendum provides several options that would reduce the existing 51,000 metric ton Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap, automatically linking the cap to future changes in the coastwide Total Allowable Catch (TAC), and requiring Virginia to divide the Bay Cap into seasonal quota periods intended to redistribute harvest throughout the fishing season. Ocean Harvesters opposed releasing the document for public comment because it asks the public to consider specific management restrictions before establishing that an underlying biological problem exists.

A Statement of the Problem Should Include a Problem
The most obvious flaw in Draft Addendum II remains unchanged following today’s vote.

The document’s own “Statement of the Problem” begins with what “may” be happening, proceeds through what is “possible” and what “could” occur, and ultimately acknowledges that “there are currently not sufficient scientific data available” to comprehensively characterize the abundance and distribution of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay or the influence of fishing pressure. It nevertheless proposes new restrictions intended to address a problem it never defines.

The addendum assembles observations, uncertainties and hypotheticals but never demonstrates that Chesapeake Bay menhaden availability has declined because of the reduction fishery or that the proposed measures would produce any biological benefit.

Public Comment Does Not Cure the Scientific Defect
Sending the addendum to public comment does not resolve the absence of a defined biological problem.

The public is now being asked to consider specific restrictions—including further reductions to the Bay Cap, automatic adjustments tied to the coastwide TAC and seasonal quota periods—without a scientifically established Bay harvest threshold, without evidence that the current cap has failed, and without confidence that any particular option would improve ecological conditions.

Virginia’s ASMFC Commissioner Adele McClure raised issues with the timing of the public comment at the meeting.

“Without that complete picture, without the proper Bay-specific data, I feel like we are putting the cart before the horse instead of availing ourselves to the upcoming studies and data that could finally guide us,” she said. “I believe that the public would be better served as a whole if we had the scientific study results to better inform meaningful comments from the public and input from all parties, especially those closest to the issue.”

Specifically, she called on the Commission to wait until upcoming scientific studies are complete.

Public comment can inform policy choices, but it cannot substitute for the scientific evidence needed to establish the problem those choices are supposed to solve.

The Commission’s Own Analysis Is Inconclusive

The Menhaden Technical Committee (TC)’s review did not establish a consistent relationship between the timing of reduction fishing and Maryland pound-net catches.

For 2023, the TC’s analysis found that Maryland pound-net catch rates during the second half of the year were generally equal to or greater than the recent average, “suggesting little influence of the reduction fishery on pound net catches.” For 2024, their analysis identified a different pattern but could not establish cause and effect and acknowledged that any relationship would depend upon fish movements and fishery dynamics at a finer spatial scale than the available analysis could evaluate.

That inconclusive record does not establish that seasonal quotas are necessary or that they would produce a measurable biological benefit.

The absence of supporting evidence is not new. In 2018, then-ASMFC Chair James J. Gilmore Jr. wrote that there was “no evidence in Amendment 3” showing that lowering the Bay Cap was necessary to protect the Chesapeake Bay as a nursery area for menhaden or other species. He added that Commission leadership agreed the amendment did not provide sufficient evidence to support those claims.

The Research Needed to Answer These Questions Is Already Underway
The Commission is moving forward just as significant public and industry-supported research is beginning.

The Science Center for Marine Fisheries has funded a collaborative research roadmap involving scientists from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and NOAA. The project is intended to identify the data, methods, costs and timetable needed to establish a scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Bay Cap. It is examining how future research could measure Bay-specific menhaden abundance, fishing mortality, movement between the Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters and availability to predators.

Virginia has also committed $2 million over two years to a VIMS-led Atlantic menhaden research program. The authorized work includes menhaden abundance and movement, predator consumption, timing and location of commercial fishing effort and localized depletion questions. The state budget expressly permits the VIMS work to build upon the SCEMFIS roadmap. Recent federal appropriations have also approved $2.5 million for NOAA to conduct a new menhaden survey in the Chesapeake Bay.

These complementary research efforts were created to produce the Bay-specific scientific information the Commission acknowledges is presently lacking. Yet the Board has advanced the addendum before either effort has produced its findings.

Public Comment Should Be Informed by Science
Today’s vote begins the public comment process; it does not resolve the scientific questions at the center of the proposal.

Ocean Harvesters encourages stakeholders to carefully review the addendum and consider whether it establishes a demonstrated biological problem, whether the proposed restrictions are supported by the available scientific evidence and whether additional management measures should be adopted before the ongoing research has been completed.

The company will participate fully in the public comment process and will continue to advocate for management decisions grounded in sound science, transparency and a clearly demonstrated biological need.

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

Ocean Harvesters pushes back on osprey study

July 22, 2026 — Ocean Harvesters has released a detailed response to a July 6 commentary by osprey researcher Dr. Bryan Watts, arguing that his recent scientific work does not establish a causal link between declining Chesapeake Bay osprey reproduction and Virginia’s commercial menhaden fishery.

The response follows an ongoing debate sparked by the publication of Widespread Reproductive Deficits in Chesapeake Bay Ospreys in Frontiers in Marine Science. As National Fisherman previously reported, the study suggested reduced availability of Atlantic menhaden may be contributing to poor osprey nesting success in parts of the Chesapeake Bay, while Ocean Harvesters maintained the research did not prove commercial fishing caused the problem.

In its latest statement, Ocean Harvesters said Watts’ own public comments reinforce that position.

“We wholeheartedly agree, as Dr. Watts said in his response, that repeating misinformation should not happen,” the company wrote. “But repeating misinformation is precisely what Dr. Watts and others have done.”

According to Ocean Harvesters, Watts acknowledged that his paper “does not link poor osprey reproduction to menhaden harvest,” while the company argues advocacy groups have nevertheless cited the research as justification for restricting the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery.

Read the full story at National Fisherman