Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Archives

Menhaden Fishermen Are TRCP’s Favorite Villains, But the Facts Don’t Fit

May 26, 2026 – The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

In a May 6 post by Jaclyn Lunaas, (“Fisheries Board Defers Advancing Plan to Address Chesapeake Bay Menhaden Management”), the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) calls the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Menhaden Board’s decision to form a work group on Draft Addendum II “another delay for Chesapeake Bay menhaden conservation,” then argues that cutting Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest (and spreading it across the season) is needed to improve outcomes for predators like striped bass.

That framing misses the most important fact: striped bass are overfished because striped bass have been overfished for years, not because managers failed to squeeze menhaden hard enough. But when the ASMFC is asked to make unpopular decisions that directly affect striped bass anglers, TRCP’s rhetoric is very different.

1) ASMFC explicitly chose status quo for striped bass in 2026 because of socio-economic consequences

The ASMFC’s striped bass management history is clear: striped bass were declared overfished in 2019 and are under a rebuilding plan that requires rebuilding to the spawning stock biomass target by 2029. The ASMFC also notes that while the stock is no longer experiencing overfishing, it remains overfished.

At an October 2025 meeting, the ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board considered—and ultimately rejected—moving forward with a proposed 12% reduction in fishery removals for 2026. The ASMFC’s own summary explicitly cited “severe economic consequences” as a key reason the Board maintained current measures and quotas.

TRCP’s response to this decision? Deafening silence. Other than its repeated attacks on the menhaden fishery, Ms. Lunaas and TRCP have not published a comment directly addressing striped bass management since November 2023.

Sticking with the status quo for striped bass will make rebuilding harder and decreases the likelihood that the 2029 rebuilding target will be met, but the ASMFC weighed that against socio-economic harm to the recreational and commercial striped bass fisheries and the communities and businesses they support. That’s a legitimate policy tradeoff. But it’s exactly the tradeoff TRCP refuses to acknowledge when it comes to menhaden.

2) Silence on protecting striped bass access, no mercy for menhaden workers

TRCP’s post pushes menhaden cuts as if predator recovery depends on it, while staying quiet on the striped bass decision that delays rebuilding trajectories and was justified, in part, by economic impacts.

When the affected stakeholders are recreational striped bass anglers (and the coastal economies tied to that fishery), TRCP is aligned with a process that treats economic consequences as central. When the affected stakeholders are the menhaden fishery’s working families—a union workforce in a rural community, and one of the largest minority workforces in its area—TRCP’s tone shifts to “just do it,” even when many of their claims about menhaden fishing remain unproven.

3) TRCP overstates the evidence on seasonal quota periods and Maryland pound nets

TRCP implies that re-timing the Virginia reduction harvest via seasonal quota periods will improve availability for predators and other fisheries, including Maryland’s pound-net bait fishery.

But the ASMFC’s Plan Development Team (PDT) memo does not support the re-timing story as settled:

The PDT calls its work a preliminary analysis and recommends the Technical Committee as the proper avenue for a detailed test of the hypothesis.
Maryland pound-net landings fell sharply in 2023–2024, but the PDT found the data suggest the decline was “primarily driven by reduced effort” because catch per unit effort (CPUE) fell less dramatically than effort and catch.
For early-season weeks (13–26), the PDT says it is unlikely low pound-net CPUE in 2023–2024 was due to the reduction fishery because reduction harvest usually begins later—and in those years was delayed even further.
For 2024, the PDT says an effect is possible, but the data were inconclusive at the resolution evaluated, and a meaningful conclusion would require finer-scale analysis of movement and fishery dynamics.

So when TRCP pushes seasonal menhaden quota periods as a practical fix to protect other fisheries, it’s taking a hypothesis and selling it as if it were established.

Bottom line

Striped bass recovery won’t be achieved by blaming menhaden whenever recommended striped bass management proposals become unpopular. The ASMFC’s Striped Bass Board chose status quo for 2026, citing economic consequence, while striped bass remain overfished and the 2029 rebuilding requirement still exists but seems unlikely.

If TRCP wants any credibility, it should stop implying that menhaden cuts are a substitute for confronting the real driver of striped bass decline—a long period of excessive striped bass fishing mortality—and face up to the hard tradeoffs between rebuilding timelines and economic realities the ASMFC has repeatedly had to make to protect both the striped bass population and the striped bass fishery itself.

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.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Peddles a False Menhaden Crisis—Not Science

May 14, 2026 – The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A May 5 statement by David Sherfinski of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) misleadingly portrays the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) as ignoring “dire warning signs” in the Chesapeake Bay by delaying action on Draft Addendum II for menhaden. But the Commission’s decision is basic due diligence: the draft addendum is technically complex, and the Board acted responsibly by choosing to refine the proposal before launching public comment.

CBF’s statement, however, leans on alarmist language, including “dire warning signs,” “starving osprey chicks,” and “plummeting bait catches,” and implies those outcomes are caused by the commercial menhaden fishery. But the available evidence does not support this, and presenting these issues as settled cause-and-effect is exactly how public confidence in fisheries governance gets undermined.

1) CBF is spinning a responsible pause as a crisis

CBF suggests the Board “delayed protections” for menhaden. But the Board’s decision to pause and form a work group reflects the reality that Draft Addendum II involves complicated design choices and real-world implementation questions that should be addressed before a public process begins.

CBF Forage Campaign Manager Will Poston called the Board’s action a “frustrating delay,” but that’s exactly backwards. Sending a complicated draft back for further development is what responsible management looks like—especially when the addendum’s mechanics and underlying assumptions are still being debated. Treating due diligence as a failure castigates the Board for doing the careful work the public expects.

2) “Dire warning signs” is hyperbole, especially when CBF treats uncertainty as a verdict

Osprey reproduction and local bait availability deserve careful attention. But referring to “dire warning signs” while implying the menhaden fishery is operating irresponsibly is not supported by the record.

On ospreys: The U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies have emphasized that multiple stressors can affect osprey productivity, and that food availability is only one factor among others such as disease, climate conditions, and water quality.

On bait: Declines in local catch cannot, by themselves, be used to diagnose a stock. Catch trends can reflect many different factors, including participation and fishing effort, costs and labor constraints, weather, shifting fish distribution, and conditions that affect where fish can live and how catchable they are.

3) Maryland Commissioner H. Russell Dize rejected scapegoating

During the May 5 Board discussion, Maryland ASMFC Commissioner H. Russell Dize warned the Board against exactly the kind of one-cause narrative CBF is pushing.

He said the Board had “taken the reduction fishery and set them out like a white elephant,” and made clear: “You can’t tell me that that’s the only problem we got with menhaden not coming into Maryland, coming up the Bay.”

Commissioner Dize continued: “You’re still not going to find the problem until we look further into what’s causing it… It’s our responsibility to find that and not just… blame this one group.”

Reflecting on his own personal history in the menhaden industry, he concluded: “I just don’t think they’re the culprit… We got other problems.”

4) CBF’s “mismanagement” insinuation clashes with the oversight record and the fishery’s MSC sustainability recertification

CBF’s statement insinuates that the fishery is being managed recklessly and must be curbed immediately. But the ASMFC’s management framework for menhaden is already precautionary and incorporates the species’ forage role through ecosystem-based reference points and oversight.

In March, the Atlantic menhaden fishery was recertified as sustainable under the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) program. MSC is an international nonprofit that operates the widely recognized blue MSC ecolabel for wild-capture fisheries. MSC certification is based on an assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard and carried out by independent third-party auditors. Certified fisheries have demonstrated that their fish stocks are sustainable, that they have minimized their environmental impact, and that they are managed effectively.

5) A serious policy debate requires a testable problem statement, not slogans

If the ASMFC is going to consider seasonal quota periods, rollovers, closures, or cap changes, the public deserves more than CBF’s headlines. At minimum, the proposal should clearly state:

What exact problem is being measured (where, when, with what data)
What evidence links that problem to fishery activity, as opposed to Bay-wide environmental conditions
What mechanism the rule is intended to change, and how success will be measured
How monitoring and enforcement will work in practice

That is what the work group should do, and what CBF’s statement does not do.

6) Advocacy shouldn’t substitute for evidence

Like too many CBF alarmist releases on this issue, the May 5 statement uses hyperbolic language to rile up its readers.

Chesapeake Bay challenges are real. But regulation-by-campaign, especially when it treats correlation as causation and elevates rhetoric over evidence, does not protect the Bay. It distorts public understanding and pressures regulators toward decisions that may be politically satisfying, but scientifically unmoored.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

Studies challenge ‘gauntlet’ theory in Chesapeake menhaden debate

May 6, 2026 — Two independent analyses are pushing back on a key claim driving current Atlantic menhaden management discussions, that Virginia’s reduction fishery is preventing fish from reaching Maryland waters.

According to a May 4 release from the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition, both a statistical review and an oceanographic study found no evidence supporting the idea that Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay purse seine fishery is “blocking” menhaden migration to the upper bay.

The findings were submitted to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Atlantic Menhaden Management Board through a comment letter from Ocean Harvesters, as regulators consider a proposed addendum focused on the timing of the reduction fishery.

Read the full article at National Fisherman

Menhaden group claims ASMFC applied a double standard on economic impacts

May 6, 2026 — An analysis released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition argues that federal fisheries managers treated economic concerns differently when weighing striped bass and menhaden management decisions at last year’s annual meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).

The report titled “When Jobs Count, and When They Don’t,” compares discussions from the Atlantic Striped Bass and Atlantic Menhaden management board meetings held during the ASMFC’s 2025 Annual Meeting.

According to the analysis, socio-economic impacts were a central factor in the striped bass debate, where commissioners ultimately opted for a proposed 12 percent reduction in harvest despite the stock being below target levels. Instead, the board maintained the status quo and formed a work group with representation from multiple sectors.

During that meeting, speakers and board members repeatedly cited the potential impacts on charter operators, recreational businesses, tackle manufacturers, and coastal economies.

In contrast, the report says similar concerns raised during the menhaden discussion, particularly those tied to industrial fishing jobs, did not carry the same weight in the final decision.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

Atlantic Menhaden Recertified for Another Five Years as a Marine Stewardship Council Sustainable Fishery

May 5, 2026 — The Atlantic menhaden fishery has been recertified as sustainable according to Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standards. The recertification once again confirms that the fishery is environmentally sustainable and effectively managed.

The Marine Stewardship Council is the international gold standard for seafood sustainability and has one of the most rigorous certification programs in the world. All fisheries certified under the MSC benchmarks must undergo an independent third-party audit to confirm that they adhere to MSC standards.

MSC evaluates fisheries according to 28 separate sustainability criteria. These criteria are divided among three principles: the sustainability of the fishery, whether the fishery has minimized its environmental impact, and the effectiveness of its management. In order to be certified, fisheries must achieve a score of at least 60 on all 28 criteria. The fishery averaged a score of more than 80 for all three of the principles measured, scoring an 86.7 on the health of the species, 82.0 on its ecosystem impacts, and 96.3 on its management system.

Three companies, Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein in Virginia, and Lund’s Fisheries in New Jersey, represent the ‘client group’ supporting this MSC assessment.

“Our operations are focused on ensuring that everything we do is sustainable and based on ecologically sound management practices, and this recertification reflects that,” said Ben Landry, Vice President of Public Affairs for Ocean Fleet Services. “The Atlantic menhaden fishery is one of the most sustainable fisheries on the East Coast, and with this recertification, we will continue to be good stewards of the Chesapeake Bay and the resource.”

The Atlantic menhaden fishery was first certified in 2019. MSC-certified fisheries are required to undergo the recertification process regularly to ensure that they still meet the organization’s high standards.

“For nearly ten years, Lund’s Fisheries has collaborated with the MSC to assure domestic and international markets, vitally important to our long-term success, that the seafood we produce is managed sustainably based on the rigorous, annual, scientific and monitoring reviews that are the core of the MSC program.” said Wayne Reichle, President of Lund’s Fisheries.

The menhaden fishery operates primarily in Virginia and in federal waters off the coast of New Jersey. In Virginia, where the fishery has operated out of Reedville since the 1870s, the menhaden purse seine fishery harvests menhaden for use in marine ingredients such as fish meal and fish oil. In New Jersey, the purse seine fishery operating out of Cape May is a key source for menhaden used as bait in the Atlantic lobster and crab fisheries and Gulf crab and crawfish fisheries. Both fisheries are integral to their local fishing economies and coastal communities.

This MSC recertification reflects the most recent science on the health of the Atlantic menhaden resource and confirms that the fishery is being managed sustainably, for the future. According to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the interstate body that manages menhaden, the species is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

TRCP Video Series Is Latest Campaign to Spread Falsehoods About Atlantic Menhaden Fishery

May 5, 2026 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A recent video series from the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership continues the organization’s near decade-long practice of spreading misinformation about the Atlantic menhaden fishery. From substituting anecdotes for real science to misidentifying the companies involved in the fishery to mischaracterizing the state of the stock, the videos paint a misleading picture of a sustainable and economically vital fishery.

Menhaden Are Important — But the “Most Important Fish in the Sea” Claim Is Misleading

The videos repeatedly refer to menhaden as “the most important fish in the sea,” which also serves as the title for the series. This phrase comes from the title of a 2007 book by H. Bruce Franklin, a former Rutgers University English professor. While menhaden are an ecologically and economically important species, the moniker of “most important fish in the sea” has historically been misused by industry opponents to suggest that menhaden play an outsized role in the ecosystem compared to other forage species. This is not borne out by the science.

A 2015 analysis of the diets of five major predator species in the Chesapeake Bay found that Atlantic menhaden was not one of the top four most important prey species. Menhaden was found to be significant for just one predator, striped bass, while bay anchovy was significant for four of the species and was even more important for striped bass than menhaden. Similarly, a 2025 study of Gulf menhaden using cutting-edge stable isotope analysis found that they do not play an outsized role in predator diets and that there is no “most important” prey species in the Gulf.

Anecdotes Are Not a Substitute for Science

Besides misleading monikers, the videos frequently use anecdotes as stand-ins for real science. In one video, a drone operator states that she saw menhaden on 76 days in 2023, and just 24 days in 2025. In another, a filmmaker states that she is seeing fewer menhaden inshore, while a few years ago there were “acres and acres of menhaden all summer long” and “you could almost walk on [them].” She also falsely states that the “biggest threat facing menhaden is overfishing.”

While the observations of those on the water can in some cases guide sound science, individual anecdotes are not a substitute for the work of numerous scientists and fisheries managers who have found the menhaden population is healthy and sustainable. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has repeatedly found that menhaden are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Moreover, the fishery is certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), the international gold standard for seafood sustainability.

The Videos Misidentify the Companies Involved in the Fishery

Another video featuring a charter captain is replete with falsehoods. In it, the captain accuses an “industrial company, Omega [Protein]” of “taking more than the Bay can handle — it’s not sustainable.” This is not only incorrect on the merits — again, the fishery is managed for sustainability by the ASMFC and has been certified sustainable by MSC — but also misidentifies the company that harvests fish. Fishing is conducted by Ocean Harvesters, an American company based in Reedville, Virginia; Omega Protein is a processing company that does no fishing.

Sustainability Is Measured by Science, Not Visual Impressions

The charter captain further states, “you can sit out here and watch them pull up a gigantic net full of [menhaden] and you look at it and it’s like ‘how is that sustainable?’” The size of the net has nothing to do with the sustainability of a species that is measured in millions of metric tons. The menhaden fishery adheres to quotas set by federal managers and states based on the best available science. That is how sustainability is measured — not by the size of individuals nets.

The Osprey Narrative Ignores Scientific Complexity

The video series also features frequent fishery detractor Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation continuing to drive the narrative that menhaden fishing is responsible for problems with osprey productivity in the Bay. This claim is echoed by Remy Moncrieffe of the National Audubon Society, who states that a “lack of science in regards to the menhaden population, especially in the Bay, is one of the biggest deterrents we have towards effectively managing menhaden.”

Menhaden is one of the most studied fish species on the Atlantic coast. Menhaden fishery members have partnered with the Science Center for Marine Fisheries for the past decade, leading to numerous scientific publications and graduate-level theses. Landings data from the industry is used by NOAA scientists and the ASMFC in their menhaden stock assessments. And the industry is supportive of a new effort to produce a research roadmap for menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.

There is no scientific consensus that menhaden fishing is related to osprey issues in the Bay. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists have pointed out that osprey populations have leveled off in numerous areas around the country, including places like California and Washington where there are no menhaden, and that there are numerous environmental factors that impact osprey productivity. Fisheries scientists have also questioned the statistical basis that some avian researchers used to draw a link between menhaden fishing and osprey.

Menhaden Is Already Managed With Extraordinary Precaution

The videos call for “more precautionary management” of menhaden “while we get more science,” ignoring the fact that menhaden are already managed with extraordinary precaution, including the use of ecological reference points specifically designed to account for predator needs. This call echoes a TRCP petition to remove the fishery from the Chesapeake Bay, which would effectively lead to its shutdown. The idea of shuttering a fishery that has operated continuously for nearly 150 years, is not overfished nor experiencing overfishing, and is certified sustainable by the world’s preeminent seafood certifier flies in the face of all traditional fisheries management. Advocacy videos from TRCP using anecdotes, mischaracterizations, and straight up falsehoods do not change the truth about this fishery.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Continues Spreading False Claims in Latest Attack on Atlantic Menhaden Fishery

May 5, 2026 – The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

Just over a month ago, Will Poston of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation once again published false and misleading claims about Virginia’s menhaden fishery. Just as CBF did in a March email falsely connecting natural fish die-offs to the menhaden fishery, Poston presents advocacy as science, speculation as fact, and political talking points as settled biology.

Poston’s piece is built around a series of assertions that cannot stand up to the actual record.

Start with his effort to portray Virginia’s 2026 legislative session as proof that industry influence defeated “meaningful conservation measures.” What lawmakers rejected were proposals that would have imposed sweeping new restrictions without first establishing any biological basis for them. Atlantic menhaden are not unmanaged, and they are not being harvested in some regulatory vacuum. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) manages this stock under ecological reference points specifically designed to account for the species’ forage role, and the Commission continues to report the stock is not overfished and that overfishing is not occurring. The fishery is also certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, the international gold standard for seafood sustainability.

Then there is Poston’s claim that “new coastwide science found the population of menhaden is nearly 40 percent smaller than previously estimated.” This is one of the most misleading lines in the entire article. It invites readers to think scientists discovered a dramatic new collapse in the stock. This is not the case. The ASMFC responded directly to this talking point and explained that the difference between the earlier and later estimates is “primarily due to a change in the estimate of natural mortality.” Importantly, the ASMFC stated, “the 2025 update indicates total biomass has actually slightly increased since 2021. The lower estimate of biomass from the current assessment compared to the previous assessment is a result of a change in our understanding of the stock rather than a change in the stock itself.” Poston is taking a technical model revision and selling it to the public as a conservation crisis.

Poston also points to osprey chick mortality and implies that menhaden harvest is to blame. That claim goes well beyond what the underlying science supports. As the U.S. Geological Survey has stated, many factors affect osprey productivity, including contaminants, disease, predation risk, parental condition, brood size, and weather conditions, as well as prey abundance and access to prey. Current research has not explored all the possible causes of osprey issues in the Bay. It is one thing to say more research is warranted. It is another to repeatedly tell the public that the case is already closed when it is not.

A similar problem appears in Poston’s claim that bait fishermen have seen catches decline and that this somehow proves the Bay is being emptied of menhaden by the reduction fleet. That is an anecdote dressed up as population science. Catch levels in local bait fisheries can reflect a range of factors, including effort, participation, market conditions, gear, weather, and location. Poston presents this as if it were hard evidence, when science continues to point to a healthy stock.

Poston’s charge that scientific research “has repeatedly been delayed by Omega Protein and their Richmond lobbying firm” is also false. There is a legitimate policy debate over what kind of Chesapeake-specific research should be done, how quickly, by whom, and for what management purpose. But that is very different from claiming the industry has simply blocked science. In fact, the industry has supported a Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) project to produce a research roadmap for menhaden in the Bay as a long-overdue opportunity to ground Bay management in sound science. SCEMFIS, a member of the National Science Foundation’s Industry-University Cooperative Research Program, brings scientists and industry together to fund and conduct applied marine fisheries research.

Last Fall, SCEMFIS funded a team of Atlantic menhaden researchers from the Batten School of Coastal and Marine Sciences & VIMS at William & Mary, the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory at UMCES, and NOAA to identify the research needed to support a scientifically defensible Chesapeake Bay harvest cap. Since then, the team has worked collaboratively online, met in person in February in Solomons Island, Maryland, and presented its progress at the SCEMFIS spring meeting in Nashville. The current focus is on advancing a PIT-tagging pilot study, including controlled holding studies at VIMS and field-planning work starting May 12 with Ocean Harvesters to determine how tagged fish could be detected and recovered during commercial fishing and processing operations.

Poston wants readers to believe that one side supports research and the other side fears it, but that caricature is not an accurate description of the actual debate. One side is helping science progress, while the other side is raising money via fear-mongering.

A broader look at the data only further undermines Poston’s narrative. The ASMFC’s 2025 Atlantic menhaden assessment update shows that recent coastwide age-1+ biomass remains roughly twice the depressed levels seen in the early 1970s, even after the revised natural-mortality assumption in the 2025 model. At the same time, the ASMFC says coastwide reduction landings today are only about one-third to one-half of what they were in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery is already tightly constrained by a 51,000-metric-ton Bay cap that is far below historic Bay harvest levels.

And Maryland’s own survey work continues to show strong juvenile menhaden presence in the Bay: Maryland DNR reported that menhaden abundance in 2024 was nearly equal to the previous year, “which was the highest measured since 1990,” and in October 2025 stated that “Atlantic menhaden and bay anchovies were widespread in the Bay for the third consecutive year.”

The truth is much simpler than Poston would like readers to believe. Atlantic menhaden are managed under one of the most ecosystem-conscious fisheries frameworks on the Atlantic coast. The ASMFC says the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The ASMFC says the latest update shows total biomass has actually slightly increased since 2021. And the ASMFC says the lower biomass estimate relative to the earlier model reflects “a change in our understanding of the stock rather than a change in the stock itself.” Poston’s effort to turn that into proof of collapse is not honest science communication. It is advocacy masquerading as analysis.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

Analysis: ASMFC Shows Double Standard on Jobs and Economic Impacts in Striped Bass and Menhaden Management

May 4, 2026 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

An MFC analysis of two board meetings held as part of the 2025 Annual Meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission last Fall finds that the Commission treated socio-economic impacts as central to striped bass management decisions, while giving less practical weight to comparable concerns raised by the menhaden reduction industry, including vessel crews, plant workers, union families, and local communities dependent on the fishery.

The analysis, titled “When Jobs Count, and When They Don’t,” compares the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board meeting and the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board meeting, both held as part of the ASMFC’s 2025 Annual Meeting. The analysis examines how much attention each Board gave to jobs, business impacts, working waterfronts, associated industries, and the livelihoods of people directly affected by regulation.

In the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board meeting, speakers and commissioners repeatedly discussed the economic consequences of further restrictions for charter boats, for-hire operators, commercial fishermen, recreational fishing businesses, tackle manufacturers, bait suppliers, hotels, restaurants, fuel businesses, and coastal communities. Those concerns helped shape the outcome: the Board decided not to move forward with the proposed 12 percent reduction in fishery removals, despite consensus that the striped bass population is below its Target population. Instead, the Board chose status quo rather than an additional reduction and created a work group to examine the future of striped bass management with representation from “all sectors.”

In the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board meeting, representatives of the menhaden reduction fishery described local jobs, generational labor, family livelihoods, harassment of fishermen, bait-market impacts, and the economic dependence of workers in and around Reedville, Virginia. Ocean Harvesters’ CEO Monty Deihl stated that “100 percent” of Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein employees are U.S. residents and that “94 percent live within 15 miles of that plant.” Retired UFCW Local 400 representative Kenny Pinkard told the Board, “I speak for all working people in Virginia,” and reminded commissioners that their decision affected “the livelihood of these gentlemen behind me.”

Yet despite that testimony, the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board moved forward with an immediate 20 percent reduction for 2026, even with the menhaden stock having been recently announced to be healthy, not overfished and not experiencing overfishing. The analysis argues that, while the Board acknowledged menhaden-related economic concerns, it did not treat them with the same depth, breadth, or procedural seriousness shown in the striped bass debate.

“The Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board meeting and the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board meeting at the ASMFC’s 2025 Annual Meeting show that the ASMFC knows how to consider human consequences when it chooses to,” the analysis concludes. “The question is why charter trips, tackle sales, hotels, restaurants, and recreational access receive more visible concern than union jobs, plant workers, vessel crews, and working families in the menhaden industry.”

The analysis does not argue that the ASMFC ignored socio-economic concerns in the menhaden meeting. Rather, it argues that those concerns were treated differently. In the striped bass meeting, economic harm helped justify status quo, a broader work group, and a management posture focused on preserving access and industry viability. In the menhaden meeting, socio-economic harm helped moderate the severity of the reduction but did not prevent an immediate cut or produce a comparable worker-centered process.

The result, according to the analysis, is a revealing double standard: socio-economic impacts appear to become management-relevant when they affect the striped bass recreational, charter, and associated service economy, but receive less forceful treatment when they affect the menhaden reduction industry and its workforce.

Read the full analysis, “When Jobs Count, and When They Don’t.”

Two Independent Reviews Find No Evidence that Virginia’s Menhaden Season Is ‘Blocking’ Fish from Reaching Maryland Pound Nets

May 4, 2026 — The following was release by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A proposed Atlantic menhaden management addendum aimed at Virginia’s Chesapeake purse seine fishery is being driven by a simple claim: that a shift in the timing of the reduction fishery has reduced menhaden availability farther north, contributing to lower Maryland pound net harvests.

Two separate analyses, one statistical and one oceanographic, reach the same conclusion: the available evidence does not support the “gauntlet” theory. Instead, both studies suggest Maryland pound net results are better explained by (1) changes in fishing effort and (2) Bay conditions that affect where fish can live and how catchable they are.

The analyses were submitted to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board in a comment letter from Ocean Harvesters.

The ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Management Board’s Plan Development Team (PDT), the staff group tasked with drafting the proposed addendum, has already signaled that the addendum’s core premise warrants deeper scientific review. In a memo to the Board, the PDT recommended referring the proposal to the menhaden Technical Committee (TC) as “a more appropriate avenue to conduct a detailed analysis” of the central claim driving the addendum: that a recent shift in timing of the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery has reduced fish availability in the upper Bay and, in turn, reduced Maryland pound net harvests.

These two studies support that recommendation by challenging the “blocking” narrative and highlighting alternative explanations rooted in measurable environmental conditions.

1) What the numbers say: when Virginia sets are high, Maryland catch-per-trip tends to be high too

The first study was conducted by Georgetown Economic Services (GES) using commonly referenced data sources: Virginia purse-seine “net sets” and Maryland pound net landings and trips.

If the Virginia reduction fishery is preventing menhaden from reaching Maryland, then Maryland’s catch-per-trip should fall when Virginia activity rises.

That’s not what the data show.

GES calculated Maryland “harvest per trip” (a common way to express catch rate) and compared it month by month against the number of Virginia purse-seine sets, while accounting for normal seasonal patterns.

Result: the relationship was positive and statistically meaningful. The “net sets” coefficient was 2.4063 with a p-value of 0.0289, meaning the relationship is unlikely to be random noise.

Put plainly:

When Virginia set activity is higher, Maryland’s menhaden catch per trip tends to be higher.
When Virginia set activity is lower, Maryland’s menhaden catch per trip tends to be lower.

GES notes it’s “highly unlikely” that one fishery is impacting the other; the more reasonable interpretation is that both fisheries are responding to the same underlying condition: how many fish are present and available in the Bay at a given time.

This is the opposite of what you’d expect if a lower-Bay “gauntlet” were systematically starving the upper Bay of fish.

2) What the Bay’s physics say: water conditions can change where menhaden concentrate, without any “interception”

The second study was prepared by Dr. Arnoldo Valle-Levinson, a University of Florida professor who specializes in how water moves through estuaries and how that movement shapes conditions in places like the Chesapeake.

Rather than starting with fishing narratives, this analysis starts with a basic reality of the Chesapeake Bay: summer conditions can squeeze fish into smaller “livable” layers of water, and those shifts can make fish easier or harder to catch depending on location and gear.

A simple but critical point: catches fell, but effort fell too; catch rate did not steadily collapse

Dr. Valle-Levinson first looked at Maryland pound net time-series patterns:

Maryland menhaden catches show a decreasing trend over the last 12 years.
Maryland trips (effort) also show a decreasing trend.
The two “go hand in hand.”
Importantly, catch per unit of effort (catch/trip) “has not changed over time,” despite a marked dip in 2024.

That matters for public understanding: lower landings do not automatically mean fewer fish are available. Sometimes, it means fewer trips are being made.

The “hypoxia” effect: when oxygen drops, fish habitat compresses, and catches can rise

The report then evaluates how hypoxia (low oxygen levels in the water) relates to catch patterns. It tracks hypoxic depth, essentially, how far down you have to go before oxygen becomes too low for many fish.

Dr. Valle-Levinson finds that Maryland catches and catch rates show a consistent linkage with hypoxia depth over annual cycles. In practical terms, the analysis indicates that catches increase when the low-oxygen zone rises (when hypoxic depth becomes shallower), a pattern consistent with fish being pushed into a smaller oxygenated layer, making them more concentrated and more catchable.

Stratification and river flow: the upstream “push” that can set the stage

The report also finds that:

River discharge in the upper Bay relates to water-column stratification in the mid-Bay (how strongly the Bay separates into layers).
River discharge relates to hypoxic depth.
Stratification is linked to Maryland catches and catch rates, especially at deeper mid-Bay stations.
There is also evidence that increased discharge is linked to increased Maryland catch with a time lag (months).

The submission summarizes this chain in a way that’s easy to visualize: more freshwater flow → stronger layering → stronger hypoxia/habitat compression → fish concentrate → catches can rise.

The report even includes a plain-language schematic (“The estuary cascade”) illustrating how high-flow seasons can contribute to stratification, expand low-oxygen conditions, compress fish habitat, and increase pound net catches, again, without invoking any “interception” mechanism.

About Dr. Arnoldo Valle-Levinson

Dr. Valle-Levinson is a Professor in the University of Florida’s Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering and currently serves as a Program Officer for Physical Oceanography at the National Science Foundation.

He is the author of the textbook, Introduction to Estuarine Hydrodynamics(Cambridge University Press, 2022); and the Editor of Contemporary Issues in Estuarine Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Menhaden coalition pushes back on claims tied to Mid-Atlantic fish wash-up

March 9, 2026 — A recent fish wash-up along beaches from Cape Henry, Va., to Nags Head, N.C., has reignited tensions between environmental advocates and the menhaden industry, with the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition accusing the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) of mischaracterizing the event to attack Virginia’s reduction fishery.

In a statement released on March 6, the coalition criticized comments by CBF’s Will Poston linking the die-off to broader concerns about the Atlantic menhaden fishery, calling the claims “misleading” and part of a broader campaign against the industry.

“The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is using this natural event to make false accusations and continue the campaign of anti-menhaden misinformation,” the coalition stated, arguing that the beach wash-up was unrelated to fishing activity.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman