Saving Seafood

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition: Menhaden Fishing in New York, New Jersey is Sustainable, Infrequent

October 25, 2018 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The past few months have seen an unnecessary controversy over legal and routine menhaden fishing in the federal waters off the coasts of New York and New Jersey. With the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) having met this week for its annual meeting, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) would, once again, like to unequivocally state that our members’ fishing operations in both the reduction and the bait fisheries are sustainable, and in compliance with all menhaden regulations.

The recent misleading attacks on menhaden fishermen have claimed that the fishery threatens the food supply of marine mammals and other predator species, despite there being no evidence to support this allegation. Instead, the best available science points to a thriving menhaden population that is successfully meeting its ecological roles.

Over the last three years, the ASMFC, which manages Atlantic menhaden, has repeatedly delivered good news for the stock, confirming in a stock assessment last year that the species is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing. As a direct result of this news, the Commission voted to once again raise the quota, which they determined could be implemented withno risk of overfishing the resource.

Looking at the Commission’s stock assessment data, there is no evidence suggesting that menhaden fisheries are negatively impacting predator species. A MFC analysis of that data published last year found that 92 percent of Atlantic menhaden are left in the water to serve as food for predators and to meet other environmental functions.

As part of the coastwide menhaden fishery, New York’s and New Jersey’s menhaden quotas are conservatively set by the ASMFC to ensure sustainability. Most of the recent criticism of the fishery has focused on two individual days of fishing: one in late August and another in early September. Since then, activist groups have continued to push a misleading narrative to the public, ignoring the ample evidence that points to there being more than enough menhaden to support whales, fish, fishermen and fishing communities.

Members of the MFC who support a healthy menhaden fishery off New York and New Jersey include Lund’s Fisheries in Cape May, New Jersey; the Garden State Seafood Association in Trenton, New Jersey; the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in Montauk, New York; and Omega Protein in Reedville, Virginia.

About the MFC
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 catch limit raised along Atlantic coast, slashed in Bay

November 20, 2017 — East Coast fishery managers plan to increase the coastwide menhaden catch by 8 percent next year, while slashing the amount that can be harvested from the Chesapeake Bay.

But despite heavy pressure from environmental groups, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission balked at a proposal that would have required fishery managers to take into account the ecological role of the small, oily fish when setting future harvest levels.

By the end of their two-day meeting in mid-November, commissioners had succeeded in disappointing and pleasing environmentalists and industry officials alike — typically not at the same time — while setting up another big debate two years from now over how to account for the role menhaden play as a food source for other species.

In a statement after the meeting, Robert Ballou, of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and chair of the ASMFC Menhaden Board, acknowledged that many people were left disappointed by the decisions that will guide harvests for the next two years. But he said the commission’s actions demonstrated a “commitment to manage the menhaden resource in a way that balances menhaden’s ecological role with the needs of its stakeholders.”

It was the latest round in a decades-long struggle over how to manage the catch of Atlantic menhaden, a fish almost never eaten by humans that is an important food for a host of marine species. By weight, menhaden make up the largest catch in both the Chesapeake and along the East Coast, but by nearly all accounts their abundance is increasing, especially in New England. In fact, the ASMFC’s science advisers indicated that the current coastal catch limit of 200,000 metric tons could be increased by more than 50 percent with little chance of overfishing the species.

But conservation groups have long argued that such assessments do not fully account for the importance of menhaden as a food source for marine mammals, many birds, and a host of other fish, such as striped bass.

It is part of a larger, long-running debate between conservation groups and the fishing industry over how to treat forage fish, which include menhaden, anchovies and other small species that provide a critical link in the aquatic food chain by converting plankton into nourishment for larger predators.

Historically, conservationists contend that forage species have received less attention — and protection from overfishing — than the larger predators, such as striped bass. Prior to the meeting near Baltimore, conservationists had gathered a record-setting 157,599 comments urging the ASMFC to adopt new harvest guidelines, or reference points, that would take the ecological role of the fish into account when setting catch limits. If adopted, the guidelines would almost certainly have required a reduction in the current coastwide menhaden catch.

But critics — which included ASMFC’s own scientific advisers, as well as the commercial menhaden industry — said the reference points under consideration were based on studies of other species in other places and may not be applicable to menhaden.

Ultimately, the commission — a panel of state fishery managers that regulates catches of migratory fish along the coast — voted 13–5 to delay the adoption of ecological reference points until a panel of scientists it has assembled can make its own ecological recommendations, tailored specifically to menhaden. Those recommendations are not expected to be ready until 2019.

Dozens of activists attended the meeting, many holding bright yellow signs that said, “Little Fish Big Deal,” “Keep it Forage” or “Conserve Menhaden.” Many were surprised not only to be defeated after the huge volume of comments — more than 99 percent in favor of ecological reference points — but also by the lopsided vote.

Read the full story at the Bay Journal

 

National Wildlife Federation Revives Menhaden Myths with Latest Petition

October 24, 2017 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition: 

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is misleading the public on the health and history of Atlantic menhaden – an economically critical fish species along the East Coast. Pushing an online petition and enlisting the help of Hollywood celebrities to call for further restrictions on the menhaden fishery, NWF is repeating and amplifying oft-repeated misinformation on the species.

Menhaden were not overharvested, and quota cuts have not been responsible for their resurgence. NWF states that “fishing pressure” had reduced the coastwide menhaden population, and the species has only begun to recover thanks to harvest reductions that went into place in 2012. Neither of these claims is accurate. Five years ago, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the interstate body responsible for menhaden management, instituted harvest cuts based on an inaccurate and flawed stock assessment. But two improved, subsequent assessments, one released in 2015 and one earlier this year, instead confirm that menhaden are not overfished, nor are they experiencing overfishing.

More importantly, the assessments also found that this is not a recent development: menhaden have not been overfished at any point in the last decade, and menhaden fishing mortality has been on a long-term downward trend and is near the lowest it has ever been. Last year, the ASMFC considered the menhaden stock to be healthy enough that they voted to raise the coastwide quota.

The menhaden fishery does not heavily impact striped bass. Menhaden are one of the many forage species that are eaten by striped bass. But recent science finds that the menhaden fishery does not have as much of an impact on predator species as commonly thought. A study published this April by Dr. Ray Hilborn and a team of fisheries scientists concluded that the size of predator populations had little correlation to the number of forage fish available to them, and that other factors, including the location and naturally fluctuating populations of forage species, were just as influential.

It also found that, specifically in the case of menhaden, that predators such as striped bass are not in direct competition with menhaden fishermen: bass typically target smaller fish, while fishermen generally catch older fish.

Menhaden oversight did not begin in 2012. While 2012 marked the first time that a coastwide quota was put into effect, the NWF is wrong to suggest that this marks the beginning of menhaden oversight. The ASMFC has monitored the menhaden fishery since the late 1950s, and state-level catch limits and restrictions were in place long before the 2012 quota.

NWF surrogates are also wrong characterizing the current debate over menhaden reference points as the menhaden fishery wanting to “remove restrictions” on the species. Members of the menhaden fishery instead support quotas and reference points for menhaden that are supported by the science produced by the ASMFC, and reflect the healthy state of the menhaden population.

Menhaden are not “the most important fish in the sea.” Credible scientists do not consider any one species “most important.” The moniker “the most important fish in the sea” was coined by Rutgers University English professor H. Bruce Franklin in his 2007 book of the same name. The phrase stems from entirely qualitative judgments made by the author that lack scientific founding. There has been no scientific study that validates this claim, and studies that have attempted to analyze how menhaden affects other species and the ecosystem, like the Hilborn et al. study published earlier this year, have found that it is just one of many factors impacting predator species.

The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Menhaden Advisory Committee discussed the book upon its publication in a March 2008 meeting and concluded, “the book should be sold as a book of fiction and generally disregarded.” There is no scientific evidence supporting the hyperbolic statement that any one species of fish is “most important,” and this phrase represents only Dr. Franklin’s opinion, rather than any scientific consensus.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition 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 releases ‘Atlantic Menhaden: Fishing by the Numbers’

March 16, 2016 (Menhaden Fisheries Coalition) — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

While prominent environmental groups have claimed for years that the menhaden fishery has harvested too many menhaden, a thorough analysis from the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition shows that the number of fish being caught is a small fraction of the coastwide population.

Between 2004-2013, the fishery only harvested an average of 6.4 percent of the overall menhaden population. This leaves over 93% of menhaden left in the ecosystem as forage for birds, fish and other sea creatures. Menhaden fishing mortality, which hit an all-time low in the last assessment, is dwarfed by natural mortality, which accounts for predation and mortality from other causes outside of the fishery.

The analysis, “The Fate of an Atlantic Menhaden Year Class,” and accompanying infographic, “Atlantic Menhaden: Fishing by the Numbers,” is based on the catch data included in the 2015 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Atlantic menhaden stock assessment. Also examined in the analysis is the age of menhaden that are caught by the fishery. The fishery specifically does not target juvenile menhaden-those most likely to serve as forage-and the oldest fish-those that are the most fertile spawners. This harvest approach is reflected in the catch data: the fishery overwhelmingly catches menhaden between the ages of 2 and 3, and the catch for juvenile and older menhaden is negligible. 

These estimates, along with the 2015 assessment’s headline findings that menhaden are not experiencing overfishing nor are they being overfished, further confirm the sustainability of the fishery. With such a small percentage of the menhaden population actually going to harvest, as well as other positive indicators for stock health, it is clear that current menhaden management is safeguarding the health and the future of the species.

For more information on the results of the analysis, please review the infographic below. For more information on how these estimates were calculated, read “The Fate of an Atlantic Menhaden Year Class.”

North Carolina Fisheries Association Weekly Update for Dec. 7, 2015

December 8, 2015 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

MFC SEEKS COMMENTS ON DRAFT OYSTER AND HARD CLAM PLANS, 2015 COASTAL HABITAT PROTECTION PLAN 

Fishermen and others will get a chance to comment on future management of oysters and clams and coastal habitat at a series of public meetings to be held in the coming weeks.

The N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission will hold four meetings to receive public comments on draft amendments to the Oyster and Hard Clam fishery management plans and on the 2015 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan.

The meetings will be held in conjunction with Marine Fisheries Commission advisory committee meetings scheduled for:

Dec. 8, 5:30 p.m.

Shellfish/Crustacean AC

N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries Central District Office

5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City 

Contacts: Anne Deaton

Phone: 252-808-8063

Email: Anne.Deaton@ncdenr.gov 

Trish Murphey

Phone: 252-808-8091

Email: Trish.Murphey@ncdenr.gov

Read agenda

Dec. 9, 5:30 p.m.

Southern Regional AC

Department of Environmental Quality Regional Office

127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington 

Contact: Trish Murphey

Phone: 252-808-8091

Email: Trish.Murphey@ncdenr.gov

Read agenda

Dec. 10, 5:30 p.m.

Northern Regional AC

Department of Environmental Quality Regional Office

943 Washington Square Mall, Washington 

Contacts: Katy West

Phone: 252-948-3884

Email: Katy.West@ncdenr.gov

Holly White

Phone: 252-473-5734

Email: Holly.White@ncdenr.gov

Read agenda

Dec. 14, 1:30 p.m.

Habitat and Water Quality AC

Department of Environmental Quality Regional Office

943 Washington Square Mall, Washington 

Contacts: Anne Deaton

Phone: 252-808-8063

Email: Anne.Deaton@ncdenr.gov

Katy West

Phone: 252-948-3884

Email: Katy.West@ncdenr.gov

Read agenda


Whether to re-open shallow bays (less than six feet deep) of Pamlico Sound to mechanical harvest.The draft oyster plan amendment looks at:

  • Whether to continue the monitoring trigger of 26 percent legal-sized live oysters to determine when to close mechanical harvest (adopted in Supplement A to Amendment 2 to the N.C. Oyster Fishery Management Plan).
  • Whether to make hand harvest limits the same statewide.
  • How to mitigate harvest effort impacts on oyster resources in the Southern region.

The draft clam plan amendment looks at:

  • Whether to increase the recreational maximum daily harvest limit for hard clams.
  • Whether to allow the use of power hauling equipment in the hand harvest of hard clams.
  • Whether to modify mechanical clam harvest lines to exclude areas no longer fished.
  • The draft amendments to the oyster and clam plans also consider multiple changes to the shellfish lease program, changes to the shellfish license, and shading requirements for shellfish.

The draft 2015 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan contains four goals and four priority issues:

  • Goal 1 – Improve effectiveness of existing rules and programs protecting coastal fish habitats — includes five recommendations to enhance permit compliance, monitoring, outreach, coordination across environmental commissions and management of invasive species.
  • Goal 2 – Identify and delineate strategic coastal habitats — includes two recommendations regarding mapping and monitoring fish habitat, assessing their condition and identifying priority areas for fish species.
  • Goal 3 – Enhance and protect habitats from adverse physical impacts – includes eight recommendations on expanding habitat restoration, managing ocean and estuarine shorelines, protecting habitat from destructive fishing gear and dredging and filling impacts.
  • Goal 4 – Enhance and protect water quality – includes eight recommendations to reduce point and non-point sources of pollution in surface waters through encouragement of best management practices, incentives, assistance, outreach and coordination. This applies not only to activities under the authority of the Department of Environmental Quality, such as development and fishing, but for all land use activities, including forestry, agriculture and road construction.

Priority issues for the plan’s implementation actions include oyster restoration, living shorelines, reducing sedimentation in tidal creeks and developing metrics to evaluate habitat trends. 

Find the draft amendments to the Oyster and Clam fishery management plans at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/fmps-under-development. Find the draft 2015 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/habitat/chpp/downloads.

For more information, contact Catherine Blum, division fishery management plan coordinator, at 252-808-8014 or Catherine.Blum@ncdenr.gov.

NC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION SEEKS ADVISERS

The N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission is looking for commercial and recreational fishermen and scientists to advise it on various fisheries issues.  For information on the types of committees, requirements and how to apply see the news release.  Applications are due by Dec. 15.  

REGULATION AND RULE CHANGES:

–South Atlantic Commercial Hook-and-Line Golden Tilefish Fishery will close Dec. 8

DEADLINES:

Dec. 15 – MFC Adviser Applications

Dec. 16 – NMFS Draft Ecosystem-based Fishery Management Policy Comments

MEETINGS:

If you are aware of ANY meetings that should be of interest to commercial fishing that is not on this list, please contact us so we can include it here.    

Dec. 7-10 – MAFMC Meeting, The Westin Annapolis, 100 Westgate Circle, Annapolis, MD

Dec. 7-11 – SAFMC Meeting, DoubleTree by Hilton Oceanfront Hotel, 2717 W. Fort Macon Rd., Atlantic Beach, NC

Dec. 16 from 8 a.m.-5 p.m. – MAFMC Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel, Radisson Hotel Providence Airport, 2081 Post Road, Warwick, RI, 02886

PROCLAMATIONS: 

SNAPPER-GROUPER COMPLEX – COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (GOLDEN TILEFISH-HOOK & LINE)

POUND NET SET CLOSURE PERIOD

GILL NETS – ATLANTIC OCEAN SEASONAL MAXIMUM MESH SIZE EXCEPTIONS

GILL NETS – ALBEMARLE SOUND AREA- MANAGEMENT UNIT A- OPEN LARGE MESH GILL NETS IN WESTERN ALBEMARLE SOUND

 

Read a PDF of the Weekly Update here

Fishing for facts on the Southern flounder in NC

November 19, 2015 — Southern flounder are one of North Carolina’s most precious fishery resources. They support an important commercial fishery, provide joy to recreational fishermen and are desired by consumers. Their unique features include having a right eye that moves to the left side of their head while young, being flat and having a light and dark side.

Much has been written about flounder conservation lately. People claim that stocks are collapsing and the fishery is in crisis.

We served on the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission, which is empowered by the General Assembly to conserve our state’s fishery resources and to provide fair regulation of commercial and recreational fishing groups. We have had to make hard decisions serving in slots dedicated to scientists (two of us are marine fishery biologists), recreational fishermen and at-large positions. During our tenures we believed then, as we do now, that our leaders should use scientific facts and economic and social data to determine appropriate action in difficult conservation decisions.

The status of the Southern flounder population is unknown. The latest population assessment was rejected by reviewers and the state’s fishery experts.

Read the full story from The News & Observer

NORTH CAROLINA: Fisheries division criticized for avoiding recommendations to regulators

November 12, 2015 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission is a nine-member regulatory body that was created by the North Carolina General Assembly to regulate fishing activity and conserve the marine and estuarine fishery resources in state waters. The General Assembly has stated in law that the Commission has the duty to provide fair regulation of fishing groups in the interest of the public. The Division of Marine Fisheries is the state agency that is charged to offer scientific support to the Commission and carry out the regulations adopted by the Commission.

Currently, the issue of most concern of the Commission and the Division is that of southern flounder. Since February, the Commission has been debating various proposals to reduce the catch of southern flounder, which is our state’s most important finfish fishery for commercial fishermen. The total economic impact of this fishery averages $17 million per year to North Carolina, just for those fish caught commercially. 

Remarkably, since the Commission started the process of debating the issue of southern flounder management over 9 months ago, the Division of Marine Fisheries has not offered any recommended actions to reduce the catch of southern flounder. Currently, only one of the nine Commission members has a scientific background in fisheries, and even that experience is not based on saltwater fisheries. Yet, the Division, who has the expertise on staff that could assist the Commissioners, has not made any formal recommendations on the options being considered by the Commission or offered any options of their own. 

“We wonder why the Division exists, if not to offer assistance and make recommendations to the members of the Marine Fisheries Commission in carrying out their conservation responsibilities”, said Brent Fulcher, Chairman of the Board of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, (NCFA). 

The MFC has put six options on the table for consideration under a fishery management plan “supplement”, and the issue will be decided at its meeting next week in Nags Head.

“In the 28 years I’ve been involved with this process, I cannot remember a time when the Commission has faced such a contentious and important issue such as this one, where the Division was silent in assisting the Commission with recommended actions from a scientific perspective”, said the President of NCFA, Jerry Schill. “This decision, which will have a huge effect on many commercial fishing families and many coastal communities, is on a track for a decision to be devoid of any science and based totally on politics. That is a sad day in fisheries management for our state. Our fishermen and consumers deserve better.”

The North Carolina Fisheries Association urges the Director of Marine Fisheries, Dr. Louis Daniel, to offer recommendations based upon science to the Marine Fisheries Commission, prior to its deliberations next week.

Schill concluded, “The angst over this measure was made much more contentious when the Commission adopted the draconian net ban language, which is clearly outside the scope of the supplement process. Add the Division’s failure to offer recommendations based upon science, and you have a recipe for a very combative atmosphere.”

The North Carolina Fisheries Association is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of North Carolina’s commercial fishing families.

NORTH CAROLINA: MFC to take action on southern flounder supplement

November 11, 2015 — NAGS HEAD, N.C. — State fishery managers are scheduled to take action on a controversial southern flounder management supplement next week.

The N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission, the state’s marine fisheries rulemaking body, will hold its regular meeting Wednesday through Friday, Nov. 18-20, at Jennette’s Pier. According to a release from the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, the state agency that enforces marine fisheries rules and conducts fisheries research, the MFC is scheduled to select and approve management measures for supplement A to the southern flounder fishery management plan (FMP) Amendment 1.

The proposed supplement, and the MFC’s use of the supplement process, has drawn both support and opposition. A recent release from the N.C. Fisheries Association, a nonprofit supporting the seafood industry, criticizes the proposed supplement.

The current supplement draft includes management options to reduce southern flounder catch (both harvested flounder and dead discards) by 25-60 percent. The supplement has six management options, which include measures such as trip limits, size limits, closures and prohibiting large mesh gill nets from internal state waters.

These proposals, particularly the net ban, have been part of the reason for debate among fisheries managers, fishermen, environmentalists and legislators.

According to the NCFA release, the General Assembly has stated in law that the MFC has the duty to provide fair regulation of fishing groups in the interest of the public.

The association said the DMF is the state agency that is charged to offer scientific support to the commission and carry out the regulations adopted by the commission. The total economic impact of the southern flounder fishery averages $17 million per year to North Carolina, just for those fish caught commercially.

According to the NCFA, since the commission started the process of debating the issue of southern flounder management over nine months ago, the DMF has not offered any recommended actions to reduce the catch of southern flounder.

“Currently, only one of the nine MFC members has a scientific background in fisheries, and even that experience is not based on saltwater fisheries,” the association said. “Yet, the DMF, who has the expertise on staff that could assist the commissioners, has not made any formal recommendations on the options being considered by the commission or offered any options of their own.”

Brent Fulcher, NCFA chairman and owner of Beaufort Inlet Seafood, said the association wonders “why the division exists, if not to offer assistance and make recommendations to the members of the Marine Fisheries Commission in carrying out their conservation responsibilities.”

Read the full story at Carteret County News-Times

JERRY SCHILL: MFC not abiding by its rules

September 14, 2015 — In response to your Sept. 1 editorial “Fishy business on fish rules”: The N&O claimed the General Assembly was considering budget language that would keep the Marine Fisheries Commission from doing an amendment on southern flounder. That is not true, and our position has been that an amendment is what the commission should be doing. The issue is the relatively recent authority that has been given to the commission to do a supplement. That process is supposed to be a quick way to get regulations in place if it’s determined that the species in question is in dire straits.

Although The N&O claims southern flounder is near collapse, there are no data to support such a claim. Further, the commission is using the supplement to ban gear, which can be done only through an amendment, as the supplement process does not allow for the more detailed public scrutiny.

Read the full opinion piece at The News & Observer