Saving Seafood

Scientists did not recommend a 54 percent cut to the menhaden TAC

December 4, 2025 — In the weeks following the 2025 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) annual meeting, a wave of statements from environmental and recreational fishing groups has told the public that Atlantic menhaden scientists “recommended” a 50 to 54 percent cut to the coastwide total allowable catch (TAC). According to a detailed 14-page analysis from the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition, that claim is not only inaccurate- the meeting record itself contradicts it.

Instead, the Coalition says ASMFC’s Technical Committee and Ecological Reference Point (ERP) Working Group did exactly what managers asked: they provided risk-based projections across a range of TAC scenarios, without recommending any one option. “There were no recommendations of preferred TAC made,” the Coalition reports. “The Technical Committee and the ERP Working Group supply projections and risk information; the commissioners decide policy.”

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

New analysis: No, scientists didn’t “recommend” a 54% menhaden cut

December 3, 2025 —  The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

In the weeks since the 2025 ASMFC Annual Meeting, there’s been a widespread misconception circulated by environmental and recreational fishing groups that the ASMFC Menhaden Board’s technical and scientific advisors “recommended” a 50% or 54% cut (to 108,450 mt) to the Atlantic menhaden total allowable catch (TAC), and that the Commission ignored those recommendations. That is not the case. Rather, scientists ran a set of “if–then” scenarios for managers, without making a preferred TAC recommendation. The Technical Committee and the ERP Working Group supply projections and risk information; the commissioners decide policy.

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition has undertaken a detailed analysis and thorough review of all the meeting materials and reports, and of the entire recording of the meeting available online. It shows there is nowhere the Technical Committee (TC) or the ERP Working Group “recommends” a 54% cut, or any specific TAC. Staff consistently present options and risks at the Board’s request, not a recommendation.

The only time a 54% cut is presented as a recommendation is when Commissioner Proxy Matt Gates (CT) incorrectly described the option provided at the Board’s request as a recommendation. His motion reads: “I would like to make the motion for the TAC recommended in the TC and working groups memo that achieves a 50% probability of achieving the ecological reference point F target… move to set the TAC… at 108,450 metric tons….”

What the record shows (brief)

  • No staff “recommendation” for 54%. Technical staff presented options and risk probabilities at the Board’s request; they did not tell the Board which TAC to choose. The sole place a “recommendation” is claimed is the Gates motion quoted above. The staff materials do not recommend that TAC; they simply show it as one scenario.
  • Why 2025 numbers differ from 2022. The 2025 update uses a lower natural-mortality (M) estimate, which re-scales the entire 1955–present series (average biomass ≈ 37% lower vs. 2022). That’s a model re-interpretation, not a stock crash, total biomass is slightly higher than in 2021.
  • Considering economics is required. Section 6(a) of ASMFC’s ISFMP Charter: “Social and economic impacts and benefits must be taken into account.” The Board did exactly that.
  • The chosen 20% TAC reduction is biologically conservative.Projections show 0% probability of exceeding the ERP F-threshold (no overfishing) in 2026–2028, and only 2–4% risk of dipping below the fecundity threshold, nearly indistinguishable from a ~54% cut on that metric.
  • Threshold vs. target, in plain terms. The threshold is the do-not-cross line that ensures enough menhaden for today’s predators. The targetassumes a future in which striped bass are rebuilt and fished at their own F-target. That’s not today’s world, striped bass are overfished and being rebuilt at lower F.
  • Cutting menhaden alone can’t rebuild stripers. As Dr. Katie Drew told the Board (Feb. 2020): “you have to adjust all of them at once… if you don’t adjust the striped bass fishing mortality nothing you do to menhaden will bring that population back… we need to adjust both of them together.”

Read the full analysis here

Examples of the inaccurate “recommendation” narrative (links)

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

LOUISIANA: Gulf Menhaden Industry Replies: Backwoods University Hosts Ben Landry of Ocean Harvesters

November 5, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

Last week, Backwoods University, a podcast series from the MeatEater network, explored the menhaden fishing industry, known locally as “pogie” fishing, along the Louisiana coast. At that time, host Lake Pickle was unable to reach a representative from the commercial sector. Since then, he connected with Ben Landry, Vice President of Public Affairs for Ocean Harvesters, who joined him for a bonus episode to provide the industry’s perspective. “My job is not to tell anyone how to think,” Pickle said. “My job is to try my best to present both sides and let people make up their own mind.”

The conversation comes as the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries prepares to vote on changes to buffer zone laws, which determine how close to shore menhaden boats may operate.

Listen to the full episode here

The episode provides an in-depth look at how the Gulf’s commercial menhaden fleet views issues of sustainability, regulation, and coexistence with recreational fishing communities.

The conversation begins by clarifying a common misconception about ownership. Both Ocean Harvesters and Westbank Fishing are American-owned and operated, using U.S.-flagged vessels. While processing companies such as Omega Protein and Daybrook Fisheries have foreign parent ownership, this structure does not affect or direct fishing operations or change the domestic nature of the fleets.

A major focus of the discussion is the ongoing debate over Louisiana’s buffer zones, the designated distance commercial menhaden vessels must maintain from shore. The industry supports retaining the current half-mile buffer across most of the coast while allowing quarter-mile zones only in select, low-use areas without development, where recreational fishing is minimal. Larger, established buffer zones around Grand Isle and Holly Beach would remain intact. The goal, as outlined, is to balance access to nearshore menhaden schools, where the fish naturally congregate, while minimizing user conflicts on the water.

The episode also explores recent scientific work on bycatch, particularly a report indicating that about 85% of non-target fish survive when they remain in the net during pumping. However, survival drops sharply if fish enter the pump. To address this, menhaden fleets are working to redesign and standardized hose-cage systems to prevent large fish, such as red drum, from being pulled through the hose. The conversation describes how different configurations were tested across vessels this season to further improve survival rates. It is believed that this effort could dramatically reduce the bycatch mortality of the fishery.

Beyond bycatch mitigation, the industry has invested more than $3 million combined in stronger, more durable nets, significantly reducing accidental spills and tears, from about 15-20 per year just a few years ago to two this past season. These measures form part of a broader effort to demonstrate that the fishery can operate responsibly while maintaining jobs for Gulf Coast crews.

Pickle and Landry also discuss a recent incident involving menhaden boats and tarpon anglers. Tracking data showed vessels operating roughly three-quarters of a mile away from recreational boats during a legal set. The crews reported that any tarpon or sharks caught were released alive. The conversation emphasizes the importance of lowering tensions, maintaining open communication, and avoiding situations that could escalate conflict on the water.

Throughout the interview, Landry reflects on the long history of the menhaden fishery, which has operated for over 80 years in the Gulf and more than 145 years on the Atlantic coast, and on its continued role as a working-waterfront industry that supports local jobs. Both Pickle and Landry agree that improving understanding and dialogue between sectors is essential to maintaining sustainable fisheries and safe operations.

The episode closes with an invitation to Backwoods University from Ocean Harvesters to tour its facilities in Moss Point, Mississippi, and Abbeville, Louisiana, to see firsthand how the fishery operates.

The menhaden, or “pogie,” fishery has supplied fertilizer, animal feed, bait, and omega-3-rich oils for over a century. Menhaden are small, oily fish that play a vital role in coastal ecosystems while supporting significant local employment. The industry operates under state and regional management and is subject to ongoing scientific monitoring to ensure sustainable harvest practices.

Backwoods University is a bi-weekly podcast series from the MeatEater network examining the intersection of outdoor life, conservation, and culture. Hosted by Lake Pickle, a lifelong hunter, conservationist, and Mississippian, the show highlights diverse perspectives on environmental and policy issues affecting the modern outdoors.

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.

Press Contact
Menhaden Fisheries Coalition
(202) 595-1212
www.menhaden.org

ASMFC approves 20 percent cuts to Atlantic menhaden quota for 2026

October 29, 2025 — The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has chosen to cut the 2026 Atlantic menhaden quota by 20 percent for 2026, drawing criticism from the fishing industry and environmental groups alike.

The ASMFC menhaden management board met on 28 October and decided to reduce the total allowable catch (TAC) for menhaden to 186,840 metric tons (MT), down 20 percent from the 233,550-MT quota the commission set for 2025. The reduction was based on a number of different factors, including ecological reference points (ERPs) that include interactions between fishing mortality rates and striped bass, as well as other predator biomass targets, and a lower estimated fecundity of menhaden.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Statement of the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition on the Upcoming Atlantic Menhaden Management Board Meeting

October 27, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

Tomorrow, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Menhaden Board is slated to take up several issues which have the potential to gravely impact this historic fishery.  First, it will consider the results of the menhaden and ecological reference points (“ERP”) stock assessment. Despite a lower estimate of menhaden fecundity, the stock status remains not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The assessment team attributed this to the fact that menhaden “management has consistently been more conservative than single-species reference points would have historically prescribed.”

The second and most immediately consequential decision facing the Board is setting the total allowable catch (TAC) of menhaden for 2026 through 2028. Some are calling for up to 55% cuts to the current TAC, which would devastate not only the 150-year-old reduction fishery, but small-scale bait fishermen all along the Atlantic coast and the lobstermen and crabbers that depend on them. This is wholly unjustified. As the scientists who prepared the ERP assessment noted, even if the current TAC were to be maintained, “the probability of exceeding the ERP FTHRESHOLD [that is, overfishing to the detriment of menhaden predators] is low.” They also affirmed that the fishery has little impact on predators like striped bass because, for one, they mostly rely on younger fish that are not targeted by the fishery and, two, because the “main driver for Atlantic menhaden availability to predators is recruitment success,” which is mostly determined by environmental factors.

That said, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition supports a precautionary reduction of no more than 15% to the current TAC (or 198,518 metric tons). This level would ensure that there is no chance of overfishing over the next three years and provides fisheries managers confidence that the stock will remain healthy. This is a responsible TAC that promotes conservation and protects families that rely on the fishery.

The third agenda item of concern is the potential for initiating an action to consider reallocation of the TAC among the states. The Coalition does not oppose a review of current allocations. However, any attempt to mitigate the impact of drastic quota cuts by forcing only one or two states to shoulder the burden of conservation is inconsistent with the ISFMP Charter, which requires that “management measures shall be designed to achieve equivalent management results throughout the range of a stock.” As the initial and subsequent allocation systems did, any reallocation should consider current use of and dependence on menhaden. If reductions in the TAC are enacted, the Board should reevaluate the allocation of TAC to states with no fishery.

Finally, the Menhaden Board will address Maryland’s proposal to put new, unjustifiable limits on the precautionary Chesapeake Bay menhaden reduction fishery cap. There is simply no scientific justification for any such new measures. The Science Center for Marine Fisheries, administered by the National Science Foundation and supported by the fishing industry, is undertaking new research, led by the most respected scientists in the field, to investigate issues related to management in the Chesapeake Bay. The Board should await this new and relevant science before taking further action.

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

Menhaden Misinformation: Four Organizations Push Drastic Cuts that Contradict the Assessment Record and Ecosystem-Based Management

October 27, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), and the American Saltwater Guides Association (ASGA) are circulating claims about Atlantic menhaden that don’t match the assessment record or how this fishery is managed.

Managers already have an ecosystem framework in place that ties menhaden harvest to predator needs. The 2025 single-species and Ecological Reference Points (ERP) assessment components (adopted and implemented by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)) underwent external peer review; under Total Allowable Catch (TAC) levels set since 2021, the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring in an ecosystem context. Risk management is keyed to avoiding the ERP fishing mortality threshold, and not arbitrary percentage cuts.

Claims being circulated, and the record

1) “Striped bass anglers are making big sacrifices that will be wasted unless menhaden quotas are cut by ~50%.”

The record:

  • Rebuilding success depends on keeping striped bass fishing mortality (F) low and hoping for improved recruitment; the few recent strong year classes (e.g., 2015, 2018) were heavily impacted by fishing mortality, and Chesapeake Bay recruitment has been below average for years, issues not caused by a menhaden-forage deficit. The next striped bass amendment must hold F low enough to protect weaker cohorts.
  • Assessment-team reinforcement: the Assessment report indicated that “minor changes in Atlantic menhaden harvest rates are not expected to have major negative effects on most predators”; rather only increasing effort to the “overfishing” level (FTHRESHOLD) “would cause declines in biomass for more sensitive predator species, particularly striped bass.”  “As a result, … the probability of exceeding the ERP FTHRESHOLD under the current TAC is low.”
  • Proposals for cuts up to 55% are not indicated by the risk framework and would devastate the 150-year-old reduction fishery, small-scale bait fishermen along the coast, and the lobstermen and crabbers who depend on them without helping striped bass fishermen.

2) “Striped bass are starving due to a lack of menhaden; severe menhaden cuts are needed to rebuild striped bass.”

The record:

  • Striped bass rebuilding is driven by reducing striped bass mortality within the 10-year plan to 2029; board discussions since 2019 have focused on striped bass controls, not a forage shortage from the menhaden fishery.
  • Chesapeake Bay workgroup monitoring from Virginia and Maryland reported healthy striped bass body condition; the fish are not underfed.
  • Menhaden removals overlap little with what predators eat most: predators primarily consume age-0/1 menhaden, while the reduction fishery targets age-2+ fish.
  • Assessment team reinforcement: the fishery has limited impact on predators like striped bass because they largely rely on younger fish not targeted by the fishery, and recruitment (environment) is the main driver of young menhaden’s availability to predators.

3) “Severe coastwide cuts are necessary to hit a probability of not exceeding the ERP mortality (F) target.”

The record:

  • National Standard 1 (NS1) of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and peer-reviewed advice focus on preventing overfishing; the operative risk line in the ERP control rule is the F threshold, not the policy F target. Managers should select TACs that avoid any chance of exceeding the threshold.
  • Assessment team reinforcement: even maintaining the current TAC carries a low probability of exceeding the ERP F threshold; if managers seek extra assurance, a precautionary reduction of no more than 10% (to ~210,195 mt) produces no chance of overfishing in 2026 and only ~1% if held through 2027–2028.
  • ERP-based management already protects predators by capping risk at the ERP F threshold; under this system, menhaden are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring in an ecosystem context.
  • Adjusting TAC: a ≤10% precautionary reduction (~210,195 mt) provides no chance of overfishing in 2026 and about 1% if held through 2027–2028. Larger cuts are not indicated by the risk framework.

4) “Past TACs were far too high because menhaden abundance was overestimated.”

The record:

  • ERP-era TACs were set conservatively to avoid exceeding ecosystem risk thresholds; under ERP management since 2021, menhaden remain not overfished and overfishing not occurring in an ecosystem context.
  • The 2025 assessment’s natural mortality (M) re-estimation was empirically derived from the Ahrenholtz tag-recapture database and independently reviewed; the single-species and ERP models were externally peer-reviewed (including through NOAA Fisheries’ Center for Independent Experts) and should be treated as authoritative.
  • Assessment team reinforcement: despite a rigorous reevaluation that reduced fecundity estimates, stock status remains “not overfished” and “overfishing is not occurring,” attributed to “management [that] has consistently been more conservative than single-species reference points would have historically prescribed and [which] has continued with a conservative approach even under the 2020 ERPs [i.e., the current TACs].”

5) “Earlier assessments misestimated abundance by ~37%; ‘errors’ require a 55% TAC reduction.”

The record:

  • The “37%” talking point is misstated and does not justify fixed percentage cuts. The current natural mortality (M) (~0.932) is higher than historic values sometimes cited and was endorsed by the Center for Independent Experts after intensive scrutiny of the tag-recapture database. There is no basis to convert M updates into a mandated 55% reduction under ERPs.
  • Assessment team reinforcement: recruitment (environment) is the main driver of menhaden availability to predators; managing to the ERP fishing mortality threshold, not reverse-engineering large headline cuts, aligns with the science.

6) “Because the coastwide assessment ignores Bay impacts, new Chesapeake Bay-specific limits are needed now.”

The record:

  • There is no scientific justification for new Bay-specific limits beyond ERPs at this time; research from the Science Center for Marine Fisheries now underway will inform any Bay-focused questions, and managers should await the new science before acting.

Bottom line

  • ERP-based management already protects predators by capping risk at the ERP fishing mortality threshold; under this system, menhaden are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring in an ecosystem context.
  • Rebuilding striped bass depends on reducing striped bass fishing mortality; broad menhaden cuts are not a substitute and are not indicated by the ERP risk framework.

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

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Applauds Science-Based Review of Chesapeake Bay Menhaden Harvest Cap

October 24, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition today welcomed a newly funded Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) project to produce a research roadmap for Atlantic menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay as a long-overdue opportunity to replace political compromise with sound science.

For nearly twenty years, the Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap, a harvest limit that applies only to the reduction fishery, has been managed without biological justification. Regulators and scientists have repeatedly acknowledged this fact. The new project from SCEMFIS will identify the research needed to finally develop what the scientists leading the project call a “scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Chesapeake Bay cap.”

Regulators Acknowledge Current Bay Cap Was Never Based on Science
When the cap was first imposed in 2006, it was a political compromise between Virginia, Maryland, and environmental groups, not a conservation measure grounded with a scientific justification. As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) own Executive Director at the time, Vince O’Shea, testified before Congress in 2008, the Bay Cap was established “in response to a political problem” and “there was not a science basis for the Cap.”

That view was echoed by ASMFC’s scientific staff. In 2012, the Menhaden Plan Development Team concluded, “The annual Chesapeake Bay harvest cap is not based on a scientifically quantified harvest threshold, fishery health index, or fishery population level study.”

In a follow-up report that same year, the ASMFC Technical Committee stated: “The TC stands by its previous recommendation that, given the current fishery and history of landings, there has not appeared to be any biological benefit to the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Cap since it was implemented.”

The Technical Committee reinforced this position during the Commission’s December 2012 meeting, with the then-chairperson noting that, “Given the current structure of the industry right now, and the fish that they harvest, and the biological information that we’re collecting, there doesn’t seem to be any benefit” from the Bay Cap.  

Previous ASMFC Chairman Confirms Lack of Evidence for Bay Cap
When Virginia appealed a 41% cut to the Bay Cap in 2018, ASMFC Chairman Jim Gilmore stated in a formal letter that “there is no evidence in Amendment 3 to support the view that lowering the Bay Cap was necessary to protect the Bay as a nursery area for menhaden and there is no evidence to suggest the Bay Cap is necessary to protect the Bay as a nursery for other species.” He concluded: “Leadership agrees the Amendment does not provide sufficient evidence to support such claims.”

Call for a Science-Based Approach
Despite repeated coastwide stock increases and consistent findings that the Atlantic menhaden population is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, the Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap has remained fixed at 51,000 metric tons, less than half the level originally set in 2006. Meanwhile, the ASMFC has allowed other Bay fisheries, including Maryland and Potomac River bait harvesters, to increase their quotas.

The Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap has become a symbol of how fisheries policy can drift away from science with outside influence from special interest groups dictating management strategies. The ASMFC’s own scientists have said for over a decade that there is no biological justification for this cap.

The Need for a Research Roadmap
The SCEMFIS-funded effort, led by scientists from the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and NOAA, will begin by conducting an extensive review of the existing data on relevant issues such as Atlantic menhaden biomass, the movement of schooling pelagic fish, and the consumption of Atlantic menhaden by Chesapeake Bay predators. They will also work with the industry to review data sources such as landings data and spotter pilot reports to complement existing peer-reviewed studies and other sources of data.

After the review, the researchers will identify knowledge gaps, and will propose new study designs and methodologies to fill these knowledge gaps to inform a Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap that is based on data and is scientifically defensible.

SCEMFIS is a collaborative project between the fishing industry and leading finfish and shellfish researchers aimed at improving our understanding of important commercial species and supporting sustainable management of the fisheries that depend on them. It is part of the National Science Foundation’s Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers program.

About the Menhaden Fishery
Atlantic menhaden support the largest commercial fishery by weight on the U.S. East Coast and sustain hundreds of unionized, family-supporting jobs in rural Virginia communities where few comparable opportunities exist. Fishermen are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400, earning family-sustaining wages and full benefits. The fishery is certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, the gold standard for responsible fisheries, and the ASMFC has repeatedly found that menhaden is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring.

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.

MARYLAND: Maryland ASMFC Delegates Once Again Claim “No Menhaden” — But Baltimore Fish Kills Show Otherwise

September 29, 2025 —  For the second year in a row, Maryland’s top delegates to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) claimed menhaden were absent from Maryland’s upper Chesapeake Bay, blaming Virginia’s commercial fishermen for intercepting the fish. Yet within weeks of their irresponsible statements, tens of thousands of menhaden turned up dead in a series of massive fish kills in Baltimore Harbor, directly contradicting their testimony.

At the August 7, 2025 ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Management Board meeting, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Director Lynn Fegley and veteran waterman Russell Dize painted a bleak picture. About menhaden, Fegley told fellow commissioners that “they just are meeting maybe an outsized gauntlet” of concentrated harvest and “are in the Bay … but they were not where we are,” warning of “lower availability” and “intensive effort” that she said was “creating less escapement for these fish to get through to these small-scale gears.” Dize reinforced the point, saying, “There’s a reason why the menhaden aren’t coming in the Bay, and we need to find [it].”

These 2025 comments closely echoed their testimony a year earlier. At the August 2024 ASMFC summer meeting, Dize flatly asserted, “In Maryland, this year we have no menhaden, none… One half a bushel, Maryland has no menhaden,” while Fegley added, “There are no menhaden in Maryland. The artisanal stationary gears that Maryland watermen fish are not capturing bait for our crab fisheries.”

Yet in both years, nature quickly told a different story.

Baltimore Fish Kills Prove Menhaden Are Present
Just weeks after the 2025 meeting, Baltimore experienced three major fish kills, each comprised largely of menhaden. According to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), about 61,000 fish died on August 22, at least 120,000 on August 28, and another 25,000 on September 24 from Canton to Locust Point (CBS Baltimore). Eyewitness posts on Reddit and YouTube confirm that menhaden were the species involved.

Blue Water Baltimore’s Leanna Frick told WBAL Radio, “One silver lining is that if there aren’t fish in the harbor, you don’t see them in a fish kill … there are a lot of menhaden in the harbor, which are food species for other animals.”

The same pattern emerged after the 2024 ASMFC meeting. In early September 2024, about 24,000 dead menhaden surfaced in Baltimore Harbor; coverage of the fish kill included Chesapeake Bay Magazine, What’s Up? Media, and National Fisherman. This was followed in October 2024 by a Maryland DNR juvenile striped bass survey reporting near-record menhaden abundance, contradicting the commissioners’ “no menhaden” statements.

Blaming Virginia Fishermen While Overlooking Home Waters

Fegley and Dize have repeatedly suggested, absurdly, that Virginia’s menhaden reduction fleet, comprised of just six fishing vessels, is intercepting all the fish before they reach Maryland. But environmental experts point to Maryland’s own water-quality failures as a more direct culprit. The EPA has found zero progress on stormwater runoff, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Gussie Maguire, who warned that “pollution from stormwater has outpaced any management improvements due to increased development pressure and more intense rainfall from climate change” (What’s Up? Media).

National Fisherman likewise reported Maguire’s statement that “Maryland’s failure to adequately conduct stormwater management means pollution continues to degrade the waterway,” compounding problems for wildlife and fisheries (SeafoodSource / National Fisherman).

Bottom line: For two consecutive years, Maryland’s own ecological events and scientific surveys have contradicted their ASMFC delegates’ dishonest narrative that menhaden are absent. While Maryland delegates blame Virginia fishermen, the state’s unaddressed water-quality crisis continues to have negative effects on the menhaden in their waters, which the fish kills and surveys demonstrate are present in force.

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.

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.

LOUISIANA: Louisiana commercial fishers welcome menhaden bycatch study

July 9, 2025 –A new study on bycatch in Louisiana’s commercial menhaden fishery is largely being welcomed by the state’s fishing industry, who claim it shows the fishery “is sustainable, selective, and not a threat to red drum populations.”

“This study should put to rest the misinformation that’s too often circulated about this fishery,” Menhaden Fisheries Coalition spokesperson Bob Vanasse said in a statement. “This independent science reaffirms what we’ve always said: The Gulf menhaden fishery is guided by data, not politics or guesswork.”

Read the full article at SeafoodSource