International Game Fish Association Archives

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)

The American Sportfishing Association (ASA), in an article by Rob Shane titled Mixed Results from 2025 ASMFC Annual Meeting, states that “recent peer-reviewed science recommended a 54% quota cut” for Atlantic menhaden. (https://asafishing.org/advocacy/the-sportfishing-advocate/mixed-results-from-2025-asmfc/)
The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) press release Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Annual Meeting Ends with Mixed Results for Recreational Anglers similarly says the Board implemented only a 20 percent reduction “despite peer-reviewed research recommending a 54% cut to the commercial quota.” (https://www.nmma.org/press/article/25298)
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has repeatedly asserted that “slashing the coastwide catch limit by more than half” or “more than 50 percent” is needed to follow the science in Menhaden Stock Assessment Indicates Catch Must Be Reduced to Benefit Striped Bass and again in Marine Fisheries Board Declines to Make Science-Based Reduction to Atlantic Menhaden Catch Limit. (https://www.trcp.org/2025/10/15/menhaden-stock-assessment-indicates-catch-must-be-reduced-to-benefit-striped-bass/; https://www.trcp.org/2025/10/28/marine-fisheries-board-declines-to-make-science-based-reduction-to-atlantic-menhaden-catch-limit/)
The American Saltwater Guides Association went further, urging “massive reductions” and telling readers that “the bottom line is we need a 55% reduction in the TAC for Atlantic menhaden” in Take The Cut: Massive Reductions for Menhaden Industry Necessary. (https://www.saltwaterguidesassociation.com/take-the-cut-massive-reductions-for-menhaden-industry-necessary/)
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, in a press release by Vanessa Remmers titled Menhaden Management Meeting Results in Lackluster Coastwide Catch Reductions, told supporters that “The ASMFC menhaden stock assessments resulted in forecasts indicating the need for a 54 percent cut to the menhaden harvest to meet the needs of predators like striped bass, osprey, and marine mammals.” (https://www.cbf.org/news/menhaden-management-meeting-results-in-lackluster-coastwide-catch-reductions/)
Jim McDuffie, President and CEO of Bonefish and Tarpon Trust, in a press statement said: “While today’s vote resulted in a 20% reduction, it was far short of the reduction recommended by the Commission’s own scientists.” (https://stateportpilot.com/sports/article_24fe9863-7157-46f7-b8e0-a7327a3b2c8d.html)
The International Game Fish Association inaccurately stated in a press release that “scientists said that a quota of 108,000 MT was necessary to have a 50% chance of success of rebuilding the striped bass fishery.” (https://igfa.org/2025/10/29/fisheries-managers-fail-to-protect-menhaden-and-striped-bass/)
Sport Fishing magazine amplified the same narrative, reporting that ASMFC “implemented a 20 percent cut to the Atlantic commercial menhaden harvest, when peer-reviewed science recommended a 54 percent quota cut, according to an ASA press release” in Nick Carter’s Anglers Frustrated with Menhaden Management. (https://www.sportfishingmag.com/news/anglers-frustrated-with-menhaden-management/)
A Washington Post guest essay, It’s the ‘most important fish in the sea.’ And it’s disappearing. by Mark Robichaux, framed the controversy around the idea that managers failed to adopt the deep cuts “scientists recommend” (Nov. 20, 2025). (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/20/menhaden-fishing-caps-atlantic-reduction/)

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.

The harmful practices of trophy fishing

August 9, 2023 — The following was released by the Blue Planet Society:

While much is talked about the impact of commercial fishing on fish populations and the ocean’s health, recreational and trophy fishing also play a role in contributing to marine biodiversity decline. These don’t usually get the same conservation spotlight as people might feel there are more pressing issues when it comes to protecting the oceans. Supertrawlers, illegal fishing, ghost nets… those are urgent matters which need attention and immediate action. However, when we look at fishing as a whole, there’s, unfortunately, more to worry about.

Recreational fishing, also called angling, is one of the most popular outdoor activities around the globe and has been around for centuries. Like hunting, fishing originated as a means to provide food before becoming a pastime. There are references to angling dating from 2000 BCE, as well as in ancient Greek and Roman writings. Techniques and equipment have evolved since then, leading to a new sport category: trophy fishing.

Trophy fishing targets the largest individuals of a species aiming to obtain an award and, in some cases, large sums of money. Since its launch in 1939, the International Game Fish Association (IGFA), the biggest organisation of its kind worldwide, has been tracking saltwater records. Besides regulating the sport, its purpose was to help conservation efforts. While this still is an IGFA pillar, it’s a flawed one as it fails to understand the risks it poses to biodiversity and to protect vulnerable species.

[…]

Considering all these points, the 2014 research mentioned above recommended that the IGFA stopped awarding world records for species identified as Threatened with Extinction in the IUCN’s Red List. This small but significant change would reduce fishing pressure on those while still allowing trophy fishing for more than 90% of the species in the IGFA records. Another suggestion made by the experts was to develop non-lethal alternatives to the current requirements, including length-based records and high-quality photographs allowing the catch-and-release of threatened species.

The advice wasn’t welcomed by Jason Schratwieser, who was IGFA’s Conservation Director at the time and is currently the organisation’s President. He claimed that the record submissions for threatened species are “rare events”, not considering that even a small number can have a disproportionately high impact on those populations, as previously explained. Also, he failed to recognise the unknown number of near-record-sized fish that might be killed in the process.

Schratwieser also pointed out that “commercial landings for many of these species are an order of magnitude higher than trophy fishing efforts.” The impacts of overfishing on marine biodiversity are well-known and well-documented – and weren’t the focus of this study. Shifting the blame is pointless and counterproductive, especially for an organisation that, in theory, has conservation as one of its values. We can’t reverse the damage that’s been already done; however, we can change current policies and ensure the protection of threatened species for a better present and future.

By failing to protect endangered species, IGFA incentivises competitions to do the same. The White Marlin Open is one of the biggest fishing tournaments, taking place every year in Maryland, US. It prides itself on being the ‘World’s Largest and Richest Billfish Tournament’. By the time this year’s 50th edition finishes in mid-August, it’ll have paid more than $100 million in prizes. Of the eight species fished in the competition, two are listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN’s Red List: Blue Marlin and Sailfish. The Bigeye Tuna, targeted in the contest alongside Yellowfin and Bluefin Tuna, is also listed as Vulnerable.

Some of the White Marlin Open sponsors are big corporations like Mercedes Benz, Garmin, Under Armour and many others. It’s extremely concerning that companies are willing not only to support but to provide for a competition that incentivises and rewards people to catch endangered wildlife. This is only possible due to the lack of respect and protection warranted for marine animals. As consumers, we make choices based on needs, values, and desires. Would you still choose to support a brand knowing its practices are harmful to biodiversity?

The misconceptions that natural resources are endless, that fish are less sentient beings than land animals and therefore we can treat them as we please, and that their populations can thrive regardless of human actions, are outdated and have been proved wrong time and time again. This wishful and naïve thinking doesn’t agree with the biodiversity and climate crises we are facing.

While trophy fishing is a controversial activity in its own way, there are no arguments that could justify the lack of protection for endangered species. Even more so when these represent only a small number of the over 1,000 species that are currently fished for world record awards. When an international regulatory body refuses to make a small change to a policy that could help so many species at little to no cost, it’s time to rethink the sport as a whole.

Sign the petition to put pressure on the IGFA to stop awarding weight-based world records for fish species threatened with extinction.

Congressmen Van Drew and Rutherford Introduce ACEPA

February 11, 2019 — The following was released by the office of Congressman Jefferson Van Drew:

In response to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issuing five Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs) which would advance permit applications for seismic air gun blasting off the Atlantic Coast, Congressmen Jeff Van Drew and John Rutherford have introduced the bipartisan Atlantic Coastal Economies Protection Act to prohibit or stop seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic Ocean. Seismic air gun testing is the first step towards offshore oil and gas exploration and a direct threat to the coastal fishing and tourism economies dependent on healthy ocean ecosystems.

Congressman Jeff Van Drew has a history of working to protect the coastal economy and environment. In 2018 during his time in the New Jersey state legislature, he introduced and passed Senate Bill No. 258 which prohibited offshore oil or natural gas exploration, development, and production in state waters. “Our local economy is dependent on fishing, tourism and wildlife watching – the bottom line is offshore oil and gas drilling isn’t worth the risk,” said Van Drew.

“The waters off the East Coast are home to vulnerable mammal populations, military operations, tourist destinations, and a vibrant maritime economy. Allowing seismic testing in the Atlantic is unnecessary and potentially hazardous to the coastal communities that rely on a healthy ecosystem. The U.S. should not jeopardize our coastal economy by expanding seismic testing and offshore drilling, particularly when our energy needs continue to be met,” said Congressman John Rutherford.

Van Drew and Rutherford were joined in the effort by Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ), Joe Cunningham (D-SC), Brian Mast (R-FL), and Donna Shalala (D-FL). The bill was also endorsed by a variety of stakeholders ranging from local chambers of commerce and fisheries organizations to conservation and environmental groups.

Endorsements: Oceana, League of Conservation Voters, Surfrider Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Environment America, Earthjustice, Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, Hands Across the Sand, American Littoral Society, Ocean Conservation Research, Recreational Fishing Alliance, American Sportfishing Association, International Game Fish Association, Center for Sportfishing Policy

Read the release here

VIMS professor inducted into Fishing Hall of Fame

October 24th, 2016 — A Virginia Institute of Marine Science professor just joined Zane Grey, Ernest Hemingway and Izaak Walton as an inductee in the Fishing Hall of Fame of the International Game Fish Association.

John Graves is chancellor professor and chairman of fisheries science at VIMS in Gloucester Point. His induction this month is based largely on his billfish research, which has been “instrumental in the ongoing efforts to conserve game fish populations worldwide,” IGFA president Rob Kramer said in a statement.

“Anglers today owe him a great deal of gratitude,” Kramer said.

Billfish are large predatory fish notable for their prominent bills. Graves’ research led to the use of circle hooks for billfish, which VIMS says sharply increased the survival rate of marlin, swordfish and sailfish in the catch-and-release fishery.

His genetic research also enabled federal fisheries officials to distinguish between legally fished Pacific blue marlin and illegally fished Atlantic blue marlin.

Graves called his selection a “tribute to all fisheries scientists and fisheries managers.”

Read the full story at the Daily Press