August 6, 2026 — A peer-reviewed study found that many seafood products harvested in Alaska contain low or non-detectable levels of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as “forever chemicals.”
Researchers investigated PFAS concentrations in Alaskan seafood that was commercially harvested, analyzing edible tissue from 11 fish and shellfish species comprising five species of salmon, as well as halibut, cod, pollock, sablefish, bairdi crab, and red king crab.
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.
“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,” McClure said during the meeting, according to Ocean Harvesters’ summary of the discussion.
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
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.
August 6, 2026 — A lawsuit against Cooke Inc., Omega Protein, and Ocean Harvesters has been defeated after the United States Court of Appeals upheld its dismissal in January 2025.
Cooke Inc. was facing a lawsuit brought by W. Benson Chiles and Chris Manthey on behalf of the U.S. government, which claimed the company was committing “figurehead fraud” by controlling a fleet of fishing vessels based in the U.S. The lawsuit named a number of companies associated with Cooke including Omega Protein; Alpha VesselCo Holdings, which is also known as Ocean Fleet Services; and Ocean Harvesters.
August 5, 2026 — The following was released by the Science Center for Marine Fisheries:
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) is surveying Northeast and Mid-Atlantic shoreside businesses to quantify the economic value of the coastal economy in advance of potential offshore wind development. Seafood processors, dealers, wholesalers, distributors and other first-sale seafood businesses from Massachusetts to Virginia are encouraged to participate.
The survey, the Seafood First Sale Value Added Survey, was funded by a grant from the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), a member of the National Science Foundation’s Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers program, which brings together marine scientists and members of the commercial fishing and wind energy industries to collaborate on fisheries research.
The survey is designed to address the existing information gaps in how offshore wind development may affect shoreside businesses and local fishing economies. While previous surveys have focused on how offshore wind development may affect commercial fishing vessels, there is less information available about the impacts on processors, dealers, wholesalers and other businesses.
Strong industry participation is essential for the success of the survey, which will be used to provide baseline data for economic impact assessments, and inform offshore wind policy decisions and potential compensation programs.
“Compensation programs cannot fairly account for shoreside losses unless decision makers understand how seafood moves from the vessel through the other businesses that support the commercial fishing economy,” said Peter Hughes, Director of Sustainability for Atlantic Capes Fisheries and one of the fishing industry stakeholder representatives advising the multistate Fisheries Compensation Program. “This survey gives those businesses an opportunity to document their economic contribution and explain what reductions in regional landings could mean for their operations, employees and communities.”
The VIMS research team plans to use the survey results to develop a customized economic model assessing how different levels of commercial fishing impacts could affect businesses at the individual, sectoral, and regional levels. The work will help coastal communities plan for and mitigate the effects of competing ocean uses.
“The businesses operating on shore are an indispensable part of the commercial fishing industry, and it is important to be able to quantify their potential losses,” said Jeff Kaelin, Director of Sustainability and Government Relations for Lund’s Fisheries and another stakeholder representative to the Fisheries Compensation Program. “Seafood businesses should take the time to participate so future compensation policies are based on credible information from the people who buy, handle, process and distribute the catch.”
The 25-question online survey takes an estimated 15 to 20 minutes to complete. It asks about business operations, cost structures, seafood species purchased, products produced, purchasing and distribution channels, and businesses’ ability to adapt to reductions in regional commercial landings.
Responses are voluntary, and participants are not required to provide identifying information. Survey records will be maintained securely, and any email addresses submitted for the optional gift-card drawing will be separated from survey responses after the survey closes. Participants may enter a drawing for one of five $100 gift cards.
Seafood businesses may complete the survey here.
Businesses receiving an email or postcard invitation are especially encouraged to respond. Questions about the survey may be directed to Dr. Andrew M. Scheld of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at scheld@vims.edu or 804-684-7160.
About SCEMFIS
The Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) brings together academic and industry expertise to address urgent scientific challenges facing sustainable fisheries. Through advanced methods, analytical tools, and collaborative research, SCEMFIS works to reduce uncertainty in stock assessments and improve the long-term sustainability of key marine resources.
SCEMFIS is an Industry-University Cooperative Research Center supported by the National Science Foundation. Industry organizations join SCEMFIS through an Industry Membership Agreement with one of the center’s site universities and contribute both financial support and valuable expertise to help shape research priorities.
Its university partners include the University of Southern Mississippi (lead institution) and the Batten School of Coastal and Marine Sciences & VIMS at William & Mary. The center also collaborates with scientists from a broad network of institutions, including Old Dominion University, Rutgers University, the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, the University of Maryland, and the University of Rhode Island. These researchers bring deep expertise in finfish, shellfish, and marine mammal science.
Demand for SCEMFIS’s services continues to grow, driven by the fishing industry’s need for responsive, science-based support. The center provides timely access to expert input on stock assessment issues, participates in working groups, and conducts targeted studies that lead to better data collection, improved survey design, and more accurate modeling-all in service of sustainable, science-driven fishery management.
August 5, 2026 — A federal appeals court signaled that it might not allow a lawsuit brought by fishing industry businesses and trade groups against a California aquarium to proceed because of the case’s potential impact on free speech.
The New England-based plaintiffs sued the Monterey Bay Aquarium for defamation after the aquarium’s Seafood Watch conservation program placed American and Canadian lobster on its do-not-eat “red list” in 2022. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is deciding whether the lawsuit can go forward.
One of the appellate judges, Judge Seth Aframe, said during oral arguments on July 27 that it doesn’t strike him as a defamation claim and that he finds the case troubling “from a First Amendment perspective.”
“The more you broaden the class of people that fall within this, the more it feels like everybody can sue,” Aframe said.
Seafood Watch placed lobster on its list of seafood to avoid because of the threat posed to rare whales, such as the North Atlantic right whale, by potential entanglement in fishing gear.
The lobster fishing industry, based mostly in Maine, has pushed back, saying the claim inaccurately portrays it as a threat to whales and constitutes defamation that has caused economic harm. It claims that the whales face greater threats from other fishing industries, including the Canadian snow crab fishery.
Conservation groups have long made the case that lobster and crab fisheries are both dangerous to the whales, and government agencies have acknowledged that entanglement in fishing gear is a critical threat to the giant animals.
The industry is sticking to that claim despite the judges’ comments during oral arguments, Kevin Lipson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said Wednesday.
“Monterey Bay Aquarium in their Seafood Watch report didn’t disclose any of the countervailing evidence. In fact, they hid that evidence,” Lipson said.
August 5, 2026 — Looking ahead to potential offshore wind energy development along the East Coast, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) says researchers are surveying Northeast and Mid-Atlantic shoreside businesses to “quantify the economic value of the coastal economy in advance of potential offshore wind development.
VIMS is asking seafood processors, dealers, wholesalers, distributors and other first-sale seafood businesses from Massachusetts to Virginia are to participate in the “Seafood First Sale Value Added Survey.”
The project is funded by a grant from the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), a member of the National Science Foundation’s Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers program. The science center brings together marine scientists and members of the commercial fishing and wind energy industries to collaborate on fisheries research.
The survey is designed to “address the existing information gaps in how offshore wind development may affect shoreside businesses and local fishing economies,” according to a statement from the center.
Despite the offshore wind industry’s economic turmoil – and determined political and policy opposition from the Trump administration – plans for turbine arrays off southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic have survived.
Revolution Wind developer Eversource Energy said it incurred a $164 million after-tax charge from construction cost increases as it battled the Trump administration’s stop-work orders on the project.
Notably Dominion Energy recently said its 2.6-gigawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project is 81% built out, and completion is expected by the end of 2027.
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.
“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.
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.
August 5, 2026 — When Bristol Bay’s salmon run reaches its peak, the spotlight usually falls on the fishermen hauling sockeye over the rails. But just offshore, another fleet is working around the clock to keep the fishery moving.
Tender boats shuttle thousands of pounds of salmon from fishermen to processors, fuel skiffs, deliver groceries and gear, and often serve as floating support vessels during one of the busiest commercial fisheries in the U.S. Without them, many fishermen simply couldn’t keep fishing.
For Washington native Evan Blankenship, tendering has become an essential part of his livelihood.
“I stumbled into fishing and Alaska because of my high school history teacher,” Blankenship shared. “She told stories about working in a remote Alaskan cannery in the 1990s. It sounded like such a wildly different experience from where I grew up.”
In 2006, at age 19, Blankenship headed north to Naknek for his first summer working in a cannery. One season turned into many. He eventually moved from processing to tendering in Bristol Bay, then into salmon seining in Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound before buying his first seine boat in Kodiak in 2015.
Today, his operation splits the summer between Bristol Bay tendering and Kodiak salmon seining, a combination that provides both stability and opportunity.
Blankenship began combining tendering and seining in 2018 after several unpredictable years in Kodiak’s salmon fishery.
August 5, 2026 — A federal appeals court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case brought by Louisiana shrimpers challenging a 2019 federal rule that requires them to install Turtle Excluder Devices on their boats.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments Aug. 4 in Louisiana Shrimp Association v. Lutnick, a case that puts more than 30 years of regulatory history under the microscope.
The Louisiana Shrimp Association, along with individual shrimpers John Brown, Larry L. Helmer Jr. and Penny V. Zar, argues that the National Marine Fisheries Service acted arbitrarily when it eliminated a longstanding tow-time exemption and required inshore skimmer trawlers to use Turtle Excluder Devices. They say the agency offered no new scientific data to justify the change.