Saving Seafood

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

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Condemns Chesapeake Bay Foundation for Misusing Natural Fish Wash-Up to Push False Anti-Fishing Narrative

March 6, 2026 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition strongly criticizes the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Will Poston for exploiting the recent fish wash-up from Cape Henry, Virginia to Nags Head, North Carolina to promote yet another misleading attack on Virginia’s menhaden fishery.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is using this natural event to make false accusations and continue the campaign of anti-menhaden misinformation it has employed in numerous fundraising appeals, both online and in direct mail. It is another shameless attempt by CBF to make villains of the menhaden fishery, while failing to put the same focus on current environmental disasters, such as the vast amounts of raw sewage flowing into the Bay from the Potomac River. CBF’s effort to use this beach wash-up to smear the menhaden fishery fits a broader pattern: blame menhaden harvest first, oversimplify the science second, and ignore every other environmental stressor that is harder to politicize.

Mr. Poston falsely stated that efforts to fund research to better understand the Chesapeake Bay menhaden population have “been needlessly delayed by Omega Protein and their McGuireWoods lobbyists in Richmond.” There is no truth to that statement. Neither Omega Protein, nor Ocean Harvesters, nor McGuireWoods are standing in the way of any funding of a Bay survey.

The industry supports science. Over the past two decades, Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein have supported at least 15 scientific studies and have regularly provided detailed landings and operational data to NOAA and ASMFC scientists. The industry is currently working collaboratively with researchers day in and day out on menhaden tagging and other studies.

Through the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), a National Science Foundation (NSF) Industry-University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) that includes the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Marine Stewardship Council, and researchers from NASA, the industry has funded a project designed to identify the research needed to finally develop a scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Chesapeake Bay harvest cap for Atlantic menhaden. Led by scientists from the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and NOAA, it will review existing menhaden science, identify key data gaps, and recommend specific study designs, analytical methods, timelines, and costs for future Bay-focused research, including tools such as tagging, hydroacoustics, spatial modeling, and analysis of existing datasets like landings and spotter pilot reports.

When CBF says research has been “needlessly delayed” by the industry, it is distorting the record. The real issue has been making sure research is done with credible methods and defensible study design, not blocking research.

The fish die-offs are unfortunate. But as reported by WTKR News 3, Virginia Marine Resources Commission public information officer Zach Widgeon stated this was “not a result of a fishing spill or a net bust.” It was a natural cold-weather occurrence tied to a sudden temperature drop offshore.

The current die-off is not evidence of a collapsing forage base. It is evidence that menhaden remain abundant in Bay waters. As Mr. Widgeon noted, “There are so many menhaden out on the East Coast that you’re going to see them affected and washing up more than any other species.” CBF’s statements continually ignore this most basic scientific reality: Atlantic menhaden are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, according to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s current benchmark assessment. ASMFC’s management framework explicitly uses ecological reference points designed to account for menhaden’s role as forage for predator species.

CBF also ignores recent state survey data. In October 2025, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources reported that Atlantic menhaden were widespread in the Chesapeake Bay for the third consecutive year.

These attacks are aimed at real people in a real working community. The Reedville-centered menhaden industry provides the kinds of jobs that rural Virginia cannot easily replace. A Virginia Marine Resources Commission economic assessment found that the direct effects of the operation are heavily concentrated in Northumberland County, with 217 of 299 employees residing there, including 55 in Reedville. The report also describes the jobs as stable employment with benefits and union representation, and notes that most direct impacts occur in Northumberland County.

CBF is not just criticizing a fishery. It is attacking one of the most economically important sources of unionized working-class employment in Virginia’s Northern Neck, while presenting itself as the sole voice of the public interest. It is easy to issue inflammatory press releases, it’s much harder to create well-paying jobs with full benefits.

Anyone who wants to understand what is really at stake should hear directly from the union fishermen themselves. Readers should visit the UFCW Local 400 website and watch this video featuring the union fishermen describing their jobs in their own words.

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.