Saving Seafood

Virginia Menhaden Fishery Welcomes VIMS Dean Derek Aday’s Call for Science to Guide Chesapeake Bay Decisions

November 6, 2026 — Dr. Derek Aday, director and dean of William & Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the Batten School of Coastal & Marine Sciences, has offered a thoughtful and timely call for rigorous, unbiased science to guide decisions about Atlantic menhaden and the Chesapeake Bay.

In a column in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Aday described how research supported by Virginia’s newly approved budget will help scientists and managers better understand menhaden abundance, their availability to predators and fishing patterns in the Bay.

“The Chesapeake Bay is too important to manage by assumption,” Aday wrote.

“Dr. Aday has put the focus exactly where it belongs: on rigorous, independent science that can give decision-makers the information they need,” said Monty Deihl, CEO of Ocean Harvesters. “We appreciate his leadership and his recognition that these decisions affect both the Chesapeake Bay and the lives and livelihoods of coastal Virginians. The men and women who work on the Bay want healthy waters, strong fisheries and decisions grounded in sound science, and we are grateful to Dr. Aday and the scientists at VIMS and the Batten School for their commitment to finding answers.”

His message deserves the attention of everyone participating in the menhaden debate. Aday brings scientific expertise, a commitment to independent research and an appreciation of the stakes for Virginia’s fisheries and coastal communities. His clear explanation of why reliable data matter offers a constructive path forward for the Bay and the people who depend on it.

Aday’s leadership and the work at VIMS and the Batten School are welcome. His call for rigorous, independent science reinforces why policymakers should allow the research supported by Virginia, the federal government and the menhaden industry to be completed before imposing further restrictions on a fishery that supports working families and communities across the Northern Neck—especially since Draft Addendum II does not establish a biological problem that its proposed restrictions would solve.

Aday points to the long-term research behind the management of blue crabs and the restoration of eelgrass and bay scallops as examples of the value of establishing baselines, measuring results and letting evidence guide decisions. His column makes a compelling case for bringing that same commitment to the questions surrounding menhaden.

The menhaden industry has invested directly in finding answers. Through the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), the industry supports a research roadmap identifying practical methods and studies that can produce the information needed for a scientifically defensible Chesapeake Bay harvest cap. Scientists from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, VIMS and NOAA are reviewing existing research and developing approaches for filling information gaps. That work, and the separately funded federal research and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s investment in VIMS research should be completed and their findings considered before additional restrictions are enacted.

The families who fish and process menhaden have a direct stake in the outcome. Their future depends on a healthy Bay, thriving fish and birds, and a sustainable fishery they can pass on to their children and grandchildren. For generations, the fishery has supported union jobs, wages and benefits for Northern Neck families, including many African American workers.

In a letter to Gov. Abigail Spanberger, Virginia NAACP President the Rev. Dr. Cozy Bailey urged the Commonwealth to maintain the existing Chesapeake Bay harvest cap while Virginia-funded scientific research is completed. He emphasized that the fishery provides wages, health insurance, retirement benefits and stability for African American workers and union families, and that comparable jobs cannot simply be assumed to replace them.

UFCW Local 400, which represents menhaden fishermen, has called on lawmakers and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to refrain from additional Chesapeake Bay restrictions until ongoing research establishes their necessity. The union has also called for working people to have a voice in decisions affecting their livelihoods and communities.

Aday’s commitment to healthy waters, strong fisheries and decisions grounded in sound science is an example for everyone involved in the menhaden discussion. His leadership, and the work of scientists at VIMS and the Batten School, will help provide the answers needed to guide the Bay’s future.

About Ocean Harvesters

Ocean Harvesters owns and operates a fleet of more than 30 fishing vessels in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of America. The company’s purse-seine fishing operation is exclusively engaged in the harvest of menhaden, a small, nutrient-dense fish used to produce fish meal, fish oil, and fish solubles. Both its Atlantic and Gulf Menhaden fisheries are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. Committed to responsible fishing operations, Ocean Harvesters is proud to be heir to a fishing legacy that extends nearly 150 years.

UFCW Local 400 Statement on Proposed Chesapeake Bay Menhaden Cuts

October 28, 2026 — The following was released by UFCW Local 400:

United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 is calling on lawmakers and fisheries regulators to protect the livelihoods of hundreds of working families in Virginia’s Northern Neck as they consider additional restrictions on Atlantic menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay.

This call comes after an October 9 congressional letter, led by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Representative Sarah Elfreth (D-MD), urged the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to impose further restrictions on the fishery before ongoing scientific research into Chesapeake Bay’s menhaden populations has been completed.

UFCW Local 400 represents the fishermen working in the menhaden fishery who depend on the industry for stable union jobs, wages, and benefits. These workers, many of whom are African American, have long been part of the social and economic fabric of Virginia’s Northern Neck.

According to the ASMFC’s latest stock assessment, Atlantic menhaden are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The Commission has already reduced the coast-wide catch limit by 20 percent this year, while additional research remains underway.

Working families should not be forced to bear the economic consequences of decisions made without a full understanding of their impact. UFCW Local 400 members recognize the importance of protecting the Chesapeake Bay and maintaining sustainable fisheries for generations to come. Environmental stewardship must go hand in hand with economic justice and meaningful consideration of the communities whose livelihoods are at stake.

Our members have demonstrated their commitment to responsible fishing practices and the long-term health of the Bay. As documented in Local 400’s reporting on Ocean Harvesters, members have worked within regulatory catch limits and supported the sustainable management of menhaden populations. In our 2025 video featuring union fishermen, workers spoke about their responsibility to the ecosystem and the importance of preserving the fishery for future generations.

Their commitment extends beyond environmental stewardship to protecting lives on the water. In 2020, UFCW Local 400 members rescued six people after their boat caught fire in the Atlantic Ocean near the Maryland-Virginia line. Their actions reflect the deep connection these workers have to the waters they navigate every day and the communities they call home.

For generations, union fishing jobs have provided a pathway to economic stability in Virginia’s Northern Neck. Further restrictions could threaten not only individual livelihoods, but also the economic security of families that have long depended on the industry.

Conservation and workers’ rights should not be treated as competing priorities. Any decisions about the future of Menhaden must be grounded in rigorous research that is informed by the workers whose lives will be affected and accountable to the communities that depend on these jobs.

UFCW Local 400 urges lawmakers and the ASMFC to refrain from imposing additional Chesapeake Bay menhaden restrictions until ongoing research can establish their necessity. Working people should have a voice in decisions that shape their livelihoods, their communities, and their futures.

###

United Food & Commercial Workers Local 400 Union represents approximately 35,000 workers in the grocery, retail, cannabis, health care, food processing, service, and other industries in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. ufcw400.org

1,267 Workers and Community Members Urge Menhaden Board to Reject New Chesapeake Bay Restrictions

October 21, 2026 — The following was released by Ocean Harvesters:

A total of 1,267 menhaden industry employees and community members submitted letters during the public comment period asking the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Atlantic Menhaden Management Board to reject further cuts to the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery cap and mandatory seasonal allocations.

The signers included 386 industry employees and 881 community members. They signed three letters representing menhaden workers, residents of Virginia’s Northern Neck, and people outside the region who recognize the fishery’s broader economic importance.

The three letters described a fishery whose economic reach extends well beyond the vessels and processing plant. The fishery supports workers and local businesses, contributes to the coastwide bait sector and supplies products used by other industries.

All three letters opposed the options in Draft Addendum II that would cut the Bay Cap by as much as 50%, tie it to the annual coastwide total allowable catch or divide it into seasonal quota periods.

The letters made six central points:

 1. The proposal has not demonstrated the need for new restrictions

Draft Addendum II does not establish a demonstrated Bay-specific biological problem, show that the existing Bay Cap has failed, connect the reduction fishery to a Bay-specific biological problem or demonstrate that the proposed restrictions would produce a biological benefit. The addendum’s own statement of the problem acknowledges that there are not enough scientific data to fully describe menhaden abundance and distribution throughout the Bay or determine the influence of fishing pressure.

2. The Bay Cap was precautionary, not a scientifically calculated biological limit

The Bay Cap began in 2006 while managers pursued research into possible localized depletion. It was later reduced from 109,020 metric tons to 87,216 metric tons in Amendment 2 and then to 51,000 metric tons in Amendment 3. Amendment 2 states that the cap was not based on a scientifically quantified harvest threshold, fishery health index or population-level study.

3. The funded Bay-specific research should be completed first

Virginia has committed $2 million over two years for research needed to inform a scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Chesapeake Bay harvest cap. The federal government has committed another $2.5 million, while industry-supported projects are developing a research roadmap and testing tagging technology. The letters urged the Board to allow that work to produce the needed evidence before imposing another major restriction.

4. The evidence does not establish that the reduction fishery caused the reported problems

The 2026 Chesapeake Bay osprey study reported reproductive deficits and signs of food stress in higher-salinity areas, but it does not establish that commercial menhaden harvest caused the reduced prey availability or reproductive problems. The study states that there is no fishery-independent monitoring of adult menhaden in the Bay and that the data needed to evaluate the relationship between harvest and adult menhaden abundance are not available.

The ASMFC’s Maryland pound-net analysis likewise showed different catch-rate patterns in 2023 and 2024 and identified limits on what can be inferred from those data. Those results do not establish that the reduction fishery caused the changes.

5. Seasonal allocations could disrupt fishing, processing and jobs

Employees warned that seasonal allocations could leave vessels and the processing plant idle during productive summer weeks and push more work into less dependable fall conditions. The addendum’s economic analysisacknowledges potential harm if seasonal restrictions limit periods of high catch efficiency or interrupt steady processing.

Employees also explained why access to the Bay matters. Rough offshore weather can prevent crews from seeing the schools they locate by sight or catching enough fish to keep the plant operating. Fishing in the Bay is safer, uses less diesel and gets crews home sooner.

The ASMFC’s Committee on Economics and Social Sciences has also warned that the industry must maintain a minimum operating volume and that falling below it could potentially result in a complete facility shutdown. That would affect fishermen, processing and manufacturing employees, union families, suppliers, local businesses and the surrounding Northern Neck community. UFCW Local 400 describes a heavily unionized, multigenerational workforce that includes one of Northumberland County’s largest minority workforces.

6. The economic consequences would extend beyond the Northern Nec

The letters from outside the region emphasized that the industry supports businesses, workers and customers across Virginia and in other states. The fishery supplies bait used by commercial and recreational fishermen, while the reduction fishery produces fish meal, fish oil and fish solubles. NOAA Fisheriessays these products are used in aquaculture and that refined menhaden oil is used in nutritional supplements for people.

Together, the 1,267 signers asked the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board to reject further Bay Cap cuts and mandatory seasonal allocations. They urged the Board to complete the funded research, establish the problem and show that a proposed restriction will improve the outcome before putting additional jobs and communities at risk.

The Board is expected to consider final action on Draft Addendum II at the ASMFC Annual Meeting in November 2026

About Ocean Harvesters

Ocean Harvesters owns and operates a fleet of more than 30 fishing vessels in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of America. The company’s purse-seine fishing operation is exclusively engaged in the harvest of menhaden, a small, nutrient-dense fish used to produce fish meal, fish oil, and fish solubles. Both its Atlantic and Gulf Menhaden fisheries are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. Committed to responsible fishing operations, Ocean Harvesters is proud to be heir to a fishing legacy that extends nearly 150 years.

VIRGINIA: African American Union Leader Rebukes Former Virginia Cabinet Secretary Matt Strickler for Ignoring Menhaden Workers

October 19, 2026 — The following was released by the Ocean Harvesters:

Darawn Kenner, an African American union worker, chief shop steward for United Food & Commercial Workers Local 400 at Ocean Harvesters in Reedville and cook aboard the F/V Reedville, has responded in the Richmond Times-Dispatch to former Virginia Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources Matt Strickler’s call for additional restrictions on the Chesapeake Bay menhaden fishery.

In his guest column published October 17, Kenner directly challenged Strickler’s portrayal of the issue as a fight against “one foreign corporation,” saying that framing effectively erases the working Virginians whose jobs and communities are at stake.

 

Darawn Kenner, chief shop steward for UFCW Local 400 at Ocean Harvesters in Reedville

“I am an African American union worker in Virginia’s menhaden fishery. When former Natural Resources Secretary Matt Strickler reduced this debate in the pages of this newspaper to the interests of ‘one foreign corporation,’ he left people like me out of the picture.”

Kenner continued:

“The menhaden fishery is a workplace. UFCW Local 400 represents fishermen in the Reedville fleet, and the fishery supports hundreds of family-supporting union jobs in Virginia’s Northern Neck. Our union members are second-, third- and fourth-generation fishermen whose livelihoods depend on this work. My fellow workers are not an ‘industry,’ as Strickler labels us. They are Virginians supporting families and communities.”

Strickler, who served as Virginia’s Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources and Chief Resilience Officer under Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam, wrote in his earlier Times-Dispatch guest column that the company “doesn’t give a lick about Virginia or the Chesapeake Bay.” He urged Gov. Abigail Spanberger to pursue the strongest management restrictions under consideration and argued that Virginia officials should represent Virginians rather than “the interests of one foreign corporation.”

Kenner said that rhetoric ignores the people who actually work in the fishery.

“Strickler’s column gives those workers almost no attention. Instead, he writes that the company ‘doesn’t give a lick about Virginia’ and describes the fishery as an operation that ‘vacuum[s] up’ the base of the bay’s food chain. That rhetoric makes it easier to overlook the people who would live with the economic consequences of additional restrictions.”

Kenner also pointed to concerns previously raised by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

“The Southern Christian Leadership Conference has raised that concern directly. In a letter to Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, SCLC said the issue involves environmental responsibility, rural economic life, labor, wages, race and the dignity of work and warned that African American workers, union families and rural communities could be disproportionately affected. Those workers should not simply disappear from the discussion.”

Kenner then delivered the central rebuke of Strickler’s argument:

“It is difficult to comprehend a former senior official of a Democratic administration showing so little regard for blue-collar workers. Our workforce is comprised of predominantly minority, unionized working people whose livelihoods would be affected by the restrictions he advocates.”

On the science, Kenner wrote:

“The scientific record also contains important facts missing from Strickler’s account. The ASMFC’s 2025 assessment states that Atlantic menhaden is not overfished and that overfishing is not occurring. The ASMFC also says its coastwide model cannot determine menhaden abundance solely within Chesapeake Bay or define a ‘sufficient’ bay-specific level.”

Strickler also portrayed the company as indifferent to Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay. That characterization ignores the harvesting and processing industry’s financing of a Bay-specific research roadmap already underway through the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS). The project is being developed by scientists from UMCES’s Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, the Batten School & VIMS, and NOAA to identify the research needed to support a scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Bay harvest cap.

Kenner noted that Virginia itself has committed additional funding to address the same data gaps.

“That is why Virginia has funded more research. VIMS reports that the 2026-2028 state budget provides $2 million over two years for research needed to inform a scientifically defensible Chesapeake Bay harvest cap. VIMS also states plainly that scientists do not currently have the data necessary to determine menhaden survival or abundance in the bay.”

On striped bass, Kenner wrote:

“Strickler points to low striped bass stocks as another warning sign. The ASMFC’s own ecosystem model says that even if all menhaden fishing suddenly ended, that action alone would not rebuild striped bass to their biomass target. The commission identifies sustainable recreational and commercial striped bass fishing as the important management factor in rebuilding that stock.”

On osprey, Kenner wrote:

“The osprey research deserves the same precision. A 2026 peer-reviewed study documented serious food stress and reproductive problems in high-salinity portions of Chesapeake Bay and suggested reduced menhaden availability as a primary driver. But the study also states that the impact of commercial harvest on adult menhaden abundance in the bay remains unresolved because the abundance data needed to evaluate that relationship is lacking.”

Kenner also pointed to the documented economic stakes:

“The economic stakes are documented too. The ASMFC’s Committee on Economics and Social Sciences reviewed historical modeling that estimated about 519 reduction-sector jobs in Maryland and Virginia, including 347 in Northumberland County. It warned that high fixed costs can make employment losses nonlinear if harvest falls below an economically viable threshold.”

Kenner concluded by returning to the workers Strickler largely left out of his argument:

“Workers deserve to be visible in this debate. Behind his bloodless word ‘industry’ are fishermen, plant workers, mechanics, families and communities. They are directly affected stakeholders whose jobs and communities are part of the economic record regulators themselves have examined. Any account of Chesapeake Bay menhaden policy that omits them omits a material part of the story.”

Read Darawn Kenner’s full guest column:

“Matt Strickler’s menhaden argument leaves working Virginians out of the picture”

Read Matt Strickler’s column:

“Virginia must lead again on menhaden conservation”

About Ocean Harvesters

Ocean Harvesters owns and operates a fleet of more than 30 fishing vessels in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of America. The company’s purse-seine fishing operation is exclusively engaged in the harvest of menhaden, a small, nutrient-dense fish used to produce fish meal, fish oil, and fish solubles. Both its Atlantic and Gulf Menhaden fisheries are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. Committed to responsible fishing operations, Ocean Harvesters is proud to be heir to a fishing legacy that extends nearly 150 years.

Menhaden coalition warns Bay cuts could threaten fishing jobs

October 16, 2026 — The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) is pushing back against a congressional effort to further restrict Atlantic menhaden harvest in the Chesapeake Bay, arguing that lawmakers should not make additional cuts before ongoing Bay-specific research is complete.

In an Oct. 15 statement, the coalition challenged an Oct. 9 letter led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Rep. Sarah Elfreth, D-Md., urging the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to take additional action to protect menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.

The coalition said further restrictions could significantly affect fishermen, processing workers, and communities tied to the Reedville, Va., reduction fishery. Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein‘s Reedville operations provide approximately 250 to 300 jobs with benefits, according to the MFC.

The coalition also cited a review by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Committee on Economics and Social Sciences that estimated more than 500 full- and part-time reduction fishery jobs in Maryland and Virginia, including hundreds in Northumberland County. The MFC said the Reedville workforce is predominantly minority and unionized, with many families having longstanding ties to the fishery.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

Lawmakers Demand Menhaden Cuts Before Chesapeake Bay Science Is Complete, Ignoring Already Struggling Workers

October 16, 2026 – The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition is challenging an October 9 congressional letter, led by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Representative Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), urging the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to impose additional restrictions on Atlantic menhaden fishing before critical Chesapeake Bay research has been completed.

The proposed restrictions threaten a predominantly minority, unionized workforce whose families have depended on the Reedville, Virginia fishery for generations. For more than a century, the industry has helped sustain Virginia’s Northern Neck communities, providing jobs that support families and send children to school and college. United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 has documented the importance of these jobs, including in a video featuring the fishermen themselves.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) has raised concernsabout the disproportionate consequences of further restrictions for African American workers, union families and rural communities, calling for environmental stewardship and sound science alongside economic justice.

Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein’s Reedville operations provide approximately 250 to 300 well-paying jobs with benefits. A review by the ASMFC’s own Committee on Economics and Social Sciences cites estimates of more than 500 full- and part-time reduction fishery jobs in Maryland and Virginia, including hundreds in Northumberland County. It also warns that further restrictions could threaten the viability of the entire Reedville operation.

The future of the menhaden fishery, and the families who depend on it, requires a healthy Chesapeake Bay. Nobody has a greater stake in protecting the Bay than the fishermen and processing workers whose livelihoods depend on it. The fishery has worked with regulators and scientists, adjusted its fishing practices, complied with regulatory harvest limits and supported new research to improve management.

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science confirms that scientists lack sufficient data to determine adult menhaden abundance or survival in the Chesapeake Bay. And there is no scientifically established Bay-specific harvest threshold or validated adult abundance index demonstrating that commercial fishing has depleted menhaden to an unsustainable level. Virginia has committed $2 million over two years to new Chesapeake Bay menhaden research. Senator Van Hollen helped secure another $2.5 million in federal funding for a Bay-specific menhaden survey. Yet he is now leading an effort to impose additional restrictions before the research he helped fund produces results.

Participants in the fishery are members of the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), a member of the National Science Foundation’s Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers program, and contributed financially to its Chesapeake Bay menhaden research roadmap. The roadmap identifies research needed to establish a scientifically defensible Bay harvest cap. The fishery is actively cooperating with researchers from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as they develop that roadmap.

The congressional letter points to osprey breeding problems and declining Maryland bait landings as evidence of menhaden scarcity. Researchers have documented serious osprey reproductive problems, but have not established that commercial menhaden harvest caused them or that restricting the fishery would improve reproduction. Declining bait landings likewise do not establish declining Bay-wide abundance. Maryland fisheries scientists reported that explaining a recent decline in a local menhaden index through increased harvest would require an implausibly large increase in landings, suggesting other explanations, including migration, should be considered.

Maryland’s own Department of Natural Resources reported in October 2025 that juvenile Atlantic menhaden and bay anchovies were widespread in the Chesapeake Bay for the third consecutive year. The agency’s annual juvenile fish survey documented more than 36,000 fish representing 55 species. The survey does not measure adult abundance, but its findings challenge sweeping claims of Bay-wide scarcity.

The lawmakers call for ecosystem-based management, but the ASMFC already adopted ecological reference points (ERPs) in 2020, following years of work among the commercial fishery, recreational fishing interests, conservation organizations and scientists. Since 2021, those reference points have guided catch limits by accounting for the menhaden needed as prey. Striped bass was selected as the focal predator because the model found it most sensitive to menhaden harvest. The ASMFC’s 2025 ecosystem review also included osprey in the supporting full ecosystem model. The lawmakers have not explained why further restrictions would achieve benefits beyond this existing ecosystem-based system, or why it is inadequate.

Major recreational and conservation organizations helped advocate for the adoption of this system and publicly praised it when the ASMFC approved it. In an August 5, 2020 announcement, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership President Whit Fosburgh called it a “landmark decision” and “a new era in fisheries management.” The American Sportfishing Association welcomed predator-sensitive quotas as “the science-based management we look for.” Coastal Conservation Association Maryland applauded “a more holistic approach,” and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation called the decision a “significant step” in science-based fisheries management. The Marine Retailers Association of the Americas also endorsed the new approach.  Their support explicitly extended to birds: a July 2020 coalition letter urging the ASMFC to adopt the reference points identified ospreys, bald eagles, common loons and brown pelicans among the species the new approach was intended to protect.

The ASMFC’s own ecological reference point analysis found that even ending all menhaden fishing would not, by itself, rebuild striped bass to its biomass target; sustainable recreational and commercial striped-bass fishing remains essential. And the ASMFC’s April 2025 Chesapeake Bay review analyzed eight datasets covering 298,232 striped bass and found, using Fulton’s Condition Factor, that the sampled fish “are not starving and would be considered healthy.” Their body condition does not directly measure menhaden abundance, but it provides strong evidence against widespread striped-bass starvation.

The signers of the congressional letter were misled into believing that Atlantic menhaden are overfished. The facts are clear: according to the ASMFC’s latest assessment, Atlantic menhaden are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. The Commission already reduced the coastwide catch limit by 20% for 2026. The Atlantic menhaden purse seine fishery is certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Whole Foods Market, an MSC partner since 1999, describes it as the world’s leading certification program for sustainable wild-caught seafood, involving independent review of fish populations, ecosystem impacts and responsible fishery management.

The existing Chesapeake Bay harvest cap was never based on a scientifically quantified biological threshold. During a May 2008 congressional hearing, then-ASMFC Executive Director Captain John “Vince” O’Shea reportedly described the cap as established “in response to a political problem” and said “there was not a science basis for the Cap,” as documented in published accounts of his testimony. His written testimony describes the cap as a precautionary response to public concern. In 2018, then-ASMFC Chairman James “Jim” Gilmore Jr., responding to Virginia’s appeal of the reduction to 51,000 metric tons, stated that “Leadership agrees the Amendment does not provide sufficient evidence to support such claims” — referring specifically to the argument that lowering the cap was necessary to protect the Bay as a nursery area. His statement is also reflected in the ASMFC’s published proceedings.

The lawmakers have not established that further restricting this fishery would produce those environmental benefits. The ASMFC should reject further Chesapeake Bay cap cuts and mandatory seasonal allocations until the research can establish their necessity and likely benefits. Hundreds of working families should not pay the price for restrictions unsupported by completed Bay-specific science.

Congressional signatories: The published letter bears the signatures of Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and Representatives Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.-3), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.-6), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C., at-large delegate) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.-3). The accompanying press release also identifies Representative April McClain Delaney (D-Md.-6), although her signature is absent from the published letter.

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 debate puts fishermen under pressure

October 6, 2026 — As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) prepares for a November vote on possible new Chesapeake Bay menhaden restrictions, fishermen and workers on both sides of the debate say the outcome could hit their livelihoods.

The Bay Journal reported Oct. 2 that bait fishermen in Maryland and Virginia are facing declining menhaden catches and rising costs, while employees of Ocean Harvesters and Omega Protein worry additional restrictions on the reduction fishery could mean smaller paychecks or eventually fewer jobs.

ASMFC is considering changes under Draft Addendum II that could cut the Chesapeake Bay menhaden harvest cap by as much as 50 percent and establish quota periods intended to spread harvest throughout the season. The commission is scheduled to vote at the Nov. 10-11 meeting, with public comment open through Oct. 9.

The debate comes as fishermen on both sides describe growing economic pressure.

According to the Bay Journal, Maryland bait fishermen harvested about 1 million pounds of menhaden in 2024, compared with as much as 10 million pounds in previous years. Robbie Wilson, a fourth-generation pound0net fisherman on Tilghman Island, Maryland, said rising diesel costs and weaker seafood demand could make this his last year targeting menhaden.

Read the full article at National Fisherman

Whit Fosburgh Misstates Menhaden Science on Qualified Captain Podcast and Overlooks American Fishing Families

October 6, 2026 – The following was released by the American Small Pelagics Network:

The Qualified Captain is a North Carolina-based boating and maritime interview podcast hosted by Aaron Stasiak. On the podcast, Stasiak interviews captains, marine industry participants and people who have survived incidents at sea, discussing their experiences and lessons for others on the water.

In episode 55, published on Oct 1, 2026, Stasiak interviewed Whit Fosburgh, executive director of the Forage Fish Campaign and former president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Their conversation addressed menhaden and other forage fish, industrial reduction fishing and proposals to restrict or end that fishing. Fosburgh made statements about menhaden science, fisheries management and the American businesses and workers the fishery supports that conflict with the documented record. The following twelve factual corrections present the corrected facts and supporting evidence.

 

1. Striped bass recovery

Fosburgh said the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (the ASMFC) concluded that reducing the menhaden quota from about 233,000 to 108,000 tons, a cut of almost 60%, would give striped bass only a 50–50 chance of recovery.

Facts: The assessment does not say that. The probabilities in the stock projections concern exceeding a menhaden ecological fishing mortality target. They are not probabilities of rebuilding striped bass. The ASMFC has explainedthat eliminating all menhaden fishing would not, by itself, rebuild striped bass to their biomass target. Sustainable striped bass management is also necessary.

 

2. Menhaden age assumptions

Fosburgh said scientists know menhaden can live to 11 years but assumed they would never live beyond about 4½ years and therefore concluded that “they will die anyway,” so the fishery could “catch just as much.”

Facts: There is no evidence that Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission scientists made that assumption or used that rationale. The assessment does not impose a maximum lifespan of 4½ years. It applies age-specific natural mortality rates, a measure of deaths from causes other than fishing, and separately models menhaden at ages zero through five and in an age-six-and-older group. NOAA Fisheries has collected menhaden age data for decades, and NOAA-published research has documented fish older than 4½ years.

Fosburgh’s statement inaccurately portrays both the assessment and the work of the ASMFC scientists. Natural mortality estimates can affect modeled biomass, fishing mortality and reference points, but that does not mean scientists assumed that older fish do not exist or concluded that catching them does not matter because they would “die anyway.” By attributing that rationale to scientists without evidence, Fosburgh makes an inaccurate disparagement of the scientific work underlying the assessment.

 

3. Products and American economic benefits

Fosburgh said menhaden are processed and shipped to Canada, North Africa or Southeast Asia for aquaculture, and that almost all the material goes abroad.

Facts: The product sales claim conflicts with Omega Protein’s reported figures. According to the company, 70% of its 2025 sales were to U.S. customers, 83% were within the United States, Canada and Mexico, and only 17% were overseas. Omega Protein also reports that none of its Atlantic menhaden products supply Cooke Seafood operations in Canada. The fishery’s American benefits include wages and healthcare for the workers, as documented by UFCW Local 400.

 

4. Osprey nest outcomes

Fosburgh said 90% of osprey nests fail in the Chesapeake Bay and along the New Jersey and Connecticut coasts because the birds have nothing to eat.

Facts: Local findings do not establish that approximately 90% of nests throughout the Chesapeake Bay fail because industrial fishermen have removed their food. The 2026 Chesapeake study found successful reproduction at 33.1% of high-salinity nests and 65.5% of low-salinity nests. Results at individual locations varied substantially. The study does not demonstrate that industrial harvest caused the observed reproductive deficits, and its Chesapeake findings cannot substantiate the same blanket claim for New Jersey and Connecticut given that no reduction menhaden fishing occurs in those estuarine waters.

 

5. Official stock status and ecosystem management

Fosburgh described the official finding of no overfishing as a defense advanced by paid industry representatives, then said the issue is protecting the ecosystem and that managers acknowledge they are not doing that.

Facts: NOAA’s finding that Atlantic menhaden are not overfished and are not undergoing overfishing is an official scientific conclusion. Menhaden management uses ecological reference points accounting for predator needs. Characterizing the finding as merely an industry defense, or suggesting that the management framework omits the ecosystem, misrepresents the assessment and is disrespectful of the expertise of the ASMFC scientists who conduct the scientific assessments. It is a well-known fact that menhaden stocks in both the Atlantic and Gulf are not overfished, overfishing is not occurring, and the species are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. Given Mr. Fosburgh’s long-time work in this subject matter he certainly must be aware that menhaden stocks on both coasts are healthy and sustainable harvested.

 

6. Natural mortality and assessment revisions

Fosburgh said managers increased the quota after changing scientific assumptions, refused to reconsider the research when warned, and later admitted a mistake. He said the natural mortality assumption was shifted so harvest could increase.

Facts: The assessment record documents a correction and scientific review. The ASMFC’s FAQ describes a tagging data correction and peer-reviewed reanalysis that lowered estimated natural mortality. The resulting revision lowered biomass estimates across the historical series; it did not demonstrate a sudden equivalent population decline. The ASMFC states that the 2025 update indicates total biomass actually increased slightly since 2021. The documented correction does not establish that the assumptions were changed to benefit industry.

 

7. Predator losses attributed to menhaden harvest

Fosburgh said science shows current coastwide menhaden harvest reduces striped bass by about 30%. He also attributes reductions of about 15% for Gulf king and Spanish mackerel and about 10% for red drum to the removal of their bait.

Facts: Fosburgh is restating a 30% allegation that the sportfishing lobby has repeatedly advanced through use of an altered graph from a 2017 study. This is not what the study shows. The allegation is a gross oversimplification of one forward-looking simulation, and the study’s lead author criticized that use. Since 2017, regulators have switched to ecosystem-based management of the menhaden fishery, reduced the Chesapeake Bay quota by 41% and reduced the coastwide quota by 10%. The study compared long-term simulated striped bass biomass and fishery yield under hypothetical menhaden fishing mortality rates with a zero-menhaden-fishing baseline; it did not measure a 30% decline in the striped bass population caused by the reduction fishery. The paper also said strong broad-scale evidence tightly coupling menhaden and striped bass population dynamics was lacking. The ASMFC now says that even ending all menhaden fishing would not, by itself, rebuild striped bass to its biomass target; sustainable recreational and commercial fishing on striped bass remains necessary.

Fosburgh’s 15% figures for Gulf king and Spanish mackerel and 10% figure for red drum do not follow from the available feeding evidence, which does not show that these predators depend on menhaden alone. NOAA reports that king mackerel eat fish, squid and shrimp, while Spanish mackerel feed on herring, menhaden, sardines, mullet, needlefish, anchovies, shrimp, crabs and squid. A 2024 peer-reviewed University of Southern Mississippi analysis integrating stomach content and stable isotope data for 41 predators and 173 prey categories found that northern Gulf predators are generalists and identified no single menhaden-dependent predator. Red drum had 46 observed prey types; the study estimated Gulf menhaden at 2.2% of its diet and the broader Brevoortia category at 2.1%.

Nor are Fosburgh’s Gulf percentages measured population losses. They are conditional outputs from a Gulf ecosystem model, not observations that current menhaden harvest reduced those predator populations by the stated amounts. Independent technical reviews by Emeritus Professor Doug Butterworth, director of the Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group at the University of Cape Town; Professor Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences; and Professor Steven Cadrin of the Department of Fisheries Oceanography at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s School for Marine Science & Technology found too many technical problems to justify the model’s management conclusion, including uncertain diet inputs, inadequate fits to observed data and performance below conventional stock-assessment standards. The evidence may support examining possible food web tradeoffs, but it does not establish that menhaden harvest caused the 15% and 10% population reductions Fosburgh stated.

 

8. Claims that menhaden are absent

 

Fosburgh said menhaden are no longer seen along the entire coast. Later, he described people asking him about there being no striped bass and no menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.

Facts: The claim that menhaden are no longer seen along the entire East Coast is contradicted by official fishery data and observations from several regions. The ASMFC reports that 2024 commercial landings, including reduction, bait, bycatch and episodic-event landings, totaled 186,155 metric tons, while bait and recreational landings alone totaled 52,200 metric tons. It also states that adult and juvenile menhaden form large, near-surface schools from Nova Scotia to northern Florida.  Maryland DNR found juvenile menhaden widespread in the Chesapeake Bay for the third consecutive year in 2025. Recent reporting likewise documented nearshore menhaden aggregations off New York feeding humpback whales. Large die-offs further confirm the species’ presence in areas Fosburgh described as empty. Maryland’s official 2025 fish-kill report recorded three Baltimore Harbor events totaling about 206,000 fish; two were almost exclusively Atlantic menhaden and about 99% of the third were menhaden. In March 2026, hundreds to thousands of menhaden washed ashore from Cape Henry to Nags Head following a cold-stun event; a Virginia fisheries spokesman said menhaden have a “huge population” offshore and that there are “so many menhaden out on the East Coast” that they were the most visibly affected species. In September 2026, Public Radio East reported a massive Neuse River kill consisting mostly of juvenile menhaden. Catch data, observed schools and repeated die-offs directly contradict an assertion that menhaden are absent from the coast or Chesapeake Bay.

 

9. Ownership and regulatory review
 

Fosburgh said Cooke bought Omega Protein and then established Ocean Harvesters to break rules prohibiting foreign companies from fishing in American waters.

Facts: Fosburgh is repeating accusations that were at the core of the failed False Claims Act lawsuit brought by W. Benson Chiles and Chris Manthey against Ocean Harvesters, Cooke Inc., Omega Protein and related defendants. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed that dismissal in August 2026. Reporting on MARAD’s separate review states that the agency found the company’s documentation satisfactory and compliant with fishery-endorsement requirements.

 

10. The effect of the quota reduction

Fosburgh said the reduced quota of about 186,000 tons was the same as the industry’s previous catch, so not a single fish was saved. He later calls it a paper reduction.

Facts: That conclusion confuses a harvest ceiling with realized landings. The ASMFC reduced the allowable catch from 233,550 to 186,840 metric tons. The reduction limits subsequent permitted harvest. Comparing the new ceiling with an earlier year’s actual landings does not establish that the reduction saves no fish.

 

11. Gulf bycatch numbers

 

Fosburgh said Louisiana’s research found about 150 million non-target fish are caught and killed every year. He said the percentage is small but the practical number is significant.

Facts: Fosburgh turned one season’s sample-expanded estimate into a recurring annual death count. The LGL study observed 3.2% of Louisiana menhaden-fishery effort in 2024 and expanded those samples to estimate total bycatch for that season; it did not establish that the same number is killed every year. The study estimated total bycatch at about 3.6% by weight, and its accounting distinguishes retained bycatch, released bycatch and estimated post-release mortality. LDWF’s official comparison shows where red drum and spotted seatrout fishery removals actually came from over 2015–2024, measured by weight. For red drum, recreational harvest accounted for 78.9% of total removals and recreational dead discards another 11.2%—90.1% combined—while dead menhaden fishery bycatch accounted for 9.9%. For spotted seatrout, recreational harvest accounted for 93.3%, recreational dead discards 3.9%, and commercial harvest 0.1%—97.3% from directed fisheries—while dead menhaden fishery bycatch accounted for 2.7%. A raw count of small individuals, detached from weight, species composition, disposition and comparison with directed fisheries, does not support Fosburgh’s characterization.

 

12. Employment and economic losses

Fosburgh said the Virginia plant employs 260 people in good jobs, but thousands of jobs are being lost in the bait, recreational fishing, small commercial fishing and whale-watching sectors because of the fishery.

Facts: Fosburgh offered no economic analysis establishing that the menhaden fishery is responsible for job loss in the thousands. He compared the direct headcount at one processing plant with an undefined claim spanning bait, recreational fishing, small commercial fishing and whale watching, expressed no concern for the minority and union jobs sustained by the menhaden fishery, and relied on measures that are not comparable and do not support attributing thousands of job losses to it.

The menhaden fishery itself has a substantial, documented economic footprint. The ASMFC’s Committee on Economics and Social Sciences reviewed the fishery’s broader footprint and cited historical modeling of approximately 519 full- and part-time reduction-sector jobs in Maryland and Virginia, including 347 in Northumberland County. The committee also warned that high fixed costs and minimum operating volume can make job losses nonlinear: crossing the break-even threshold could cause structural unemployment and potentially a complete plant shutdown, not a proportional reduction in a 260-worker headcount.

UFCW Local 400’s account and accompanying workforce video describe hundreds of union jobs, an overwhelmingly local workforce, one of Northumberland County’s largest minority workforces, and benefits that support healthcare, college and local businesses. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference separately warned that additional restrictions could disproportionately affect African American workers, union families and rural communities, and urged full recognition of affected workers and families. Together, this record documents substantial employment tied to the fishery and its economic importance to Northumberland County and surrounding rural communities.

About the American Small Pelagics Network
The American Small Pelagics Network represents fishermen, processors, suppliers, and coastal communities connected to fisheries such as menhaden, mackerel, herring, squid, and butterfish. ASPN supports sustainable fisheries management that supports critical fish species, while maintaining economic opportunities for fishermen and fishing communities.

Menhaden fishery workers caught in the middle of debate

October 5, 2026 — Carolmane Diggs was seasick the first week he was on an Ocean Harvester vessel in 2011. It was his first time on a boat, ever. But his dad, with decades of experience fishing for menhaden, was there to help him. Diggs had explored college and the military but ultimately decided to be a fisherman “to make my dad proud.”

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) will vote in November on whether to cut the company’s allowable menhaden catch in the Chesapeake Bay. Bait watermen believe the cut will mean more menhaden in their pound nets, while Diggs and other employees of Ocean Harvesters and its partner, Omega Protein, worry they’ll lose pay or even their jobs. Public comment on the cut is open until Oct. 9.

The ASMFC has deemed the menhaden population to be not overfished along the East Coast. The population’s biomass, or weight, has increased and remained stable since the 1990s. But the commission cut the company’s coast-wide harvest by 20% last October after concluding it had previously overestimated the species’ abundance.

The ASMFC will hold a vote at its meeting on Nov. 10-11 on whether to cut the company’s harvest up to 50% in the Bay and add quota periods that would evenly distribute the catch over time.

Commercial fishermen say that harassment from some Bay harvest opponents has become expected but rare. Mostly, other boats break up schools of menhaden before the industrial vessel can catch them. The fishermen say, though, the incidents have become more personal in recent years.

David Haynie, bosun with Ocean Harvesters, was aboard a harvesting boat when a jet skier yelled obscenities and drove over a net in 2023.

“The harassment is nerve wracking because you don’t know when a certain individual could just be on his worst day and get mad at us and do something very irrational and harm us,” Haynie said.

According to a report by the ASMFC’s Committee on Economics and Social Sciences, there will be a “break-even threshold” where, if the harvest limit is pushed too low for the company, it will have to shut down instead of instituting layoffs. It’s unclear where that point lies.

It’s also unclear if any layoffs would take place following the proposed cut. If the company catches less fish, employees would be paid less. Ocean Harvester fishermen are paid based on the number of fish caught. Diggs expects to lose $10,000 over the season due to the most recent cut.

The fishery employs about 510 people directly and indirectly. Because menhaden fishing is seasonal, many employees have side jobs, from cutting trees to catering to oystering. If layoffs were to happen, many said they would retire early or need to commute two hours away to find something with the same pay and benefits.

Read the full story at the Bay Journal

Washington Post Osprey Story Blurs the Line Between Science and Special Interests

September 30, 2026 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Washington Post on September 27 published a story by Mark Robichaux under the headline “Ospreys are disappearing along the East Coast. Scientists think they know why.”

The osprey breeding failures reported in the story are serious and warrant further study. The reporting, however, repeatedly places the commercial menhaden fishery at the center of a causal question that the scientists themselves say remains unresolved, while omitting key details on menhaden management and the fishery’s economic impact.

The article does acknowledge that Dr. Bryan Watts of William & Mary’s Center for Conservation Biology describes the evidence as an association rather than proof that commercial menhaden harvest caused osprey nesting failures. That critical limitation should have guided the rest of the account.

 

The headline blurs what scientists know and what remains uncertain
 

Researchers have identified food stress as the immediate cause of many Chesapeake Bay osprey nesting failures. They have also associated that food stress with reduced delivery of menhaden to some nests. But the Center for Conservation Biology says the underlying causes of reduced menhaden availability are not clear. It lists commercial harvest as one possible factor, alongside climate change, changing distribution and delayed entry of forage species into the Bay. The headline attempts to draw in readers on a false premise.

The distinction is even more important beyond the Chesapeake. In its 2026 compilation of monitoring from 65 study areas, the center says the underlying cause of low reproductive performance at other Atlantic Coast sites is less clear. It says, “we should view ospreys as sentinels for the marine ecosystem rather than a species imperiled.” It also states, “ospreys appear to be secure throughout much of their range but are struggling within some coastal sites.” The Post’s coastwide headline is broader than those findings.

 

The article treats an unmeasured Bay-wide condition as a premise
 

The story states, without attribution, that menhaden are not present when birds and fishermen need them. Researchers have documented reduced menhaden deliveries at some osprey nests, and fishermen describe difficulty finding dependable concentrations in some locations, while abundant concentrations are observed elsewhere and mass fish kills involving mostly juvenile menhadenhave occurred in North Carolina. Those contrasting observations do not measure adult menhaden abundance throughout the Chesapeake Bay or establish a uniform coastwide shortage.

The article also calls menhaden the principal prey of Chesapeake ospreys. Menhaden are an important prey species, particularly in saltier parts of the Bay, but the peer-reviewed study cited in the story says osprey diet composition shifts with salinity: pairs in higher-salinity waters appear to rely on menhaden, while pairs in low-salinity waters depend primarily on catfish and gizzard shad. A USGS study of osprey diets across Chesapeake Bay sites and a USGS presentation to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) summarizing the site-specific results provide the underlying geographic detail. Catfish and gizzard shad accounted for 77 percent and 20 percent of the diet reported for the Susquehanna, respectively, and 52 percent and 28 percent in upper-Bay estuarine areas. At Poplar Island, striped bass accounted for 48 percent and menhaden 44 percent; in lower-Bay estuarine areas, spotted seatrout accounted for 29 percent and menhaden 24 percent. Those data do not support a single Bay-wide description of menhaden as the principal prey.

The 2026 peer-reviewed osprey study says there is no fishery-independent monitoring of adult menhaden in the Bay. According to the authors, that information gap prevents a direct assessment of the relationship between local menhaden abundance and osprey reproduction. They also say the effect of harvest on adult menhaden abundance in the Bay remains unresolved.

 

The Louisiana passage leaves out regulatory and scientific context
 

The article also turns to Louisiana’s separate Gulf menhaden fishery. It reports the 2023 net failures and later enforcement improvements, but omits existing rules governing coastal buffers, release reporting, gear retrieval, vessel tracking and penalties. Following those incidents, the fishery also moved toward stronger purse seine nets and standardized improved bycatch excluder devicesintended to keep larger fish out of the pumping system.

Robichaux also omits the Louisiana wildlife agency’s summary of a state-commissioned, season-long study of the 2024 fishery, which estimated total bycatch at approximately 3.6 percent of catch by weight. In its 2015-2024 comparison, the agency reported that dead menhaden fishery bycatch accounted for 9.9 percent of red drum removals by weight and 2.7 percent of spotted seatrout removals; directed recreational anglers accounted for the remainder, 90.1% and 97.3%, respectively. The aggregate rate does not resolve every species-specific concern, but the results are material context for evaluating the fishery.

 

Claims from advocates and fishermen are observations and policy positions
 

Robichaux quotes Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association chairman Steve Atkinson asserting that the Bay no longer contains enough menhaden to support the current reduction fishery and a healthy ecosystem. While there is little doubt that Atkinson made that statement, the scientific record cited in the story does not establish it, and it is presented without challenge.

The ASMFC’s Chesapeake work group expressly did not determine whether the supply of menhaden is sufficient to meet predator demand in the Bay. Nor has the commission determined that a 50 percent reduction in the Bay cap—the policy Atkinson supports—would improve osprey reproduction. The range from no reduction through 50 percent consists of management options under consideration, not measured biological remedies. At no point has the ASMFC provided any scientific rationale for a reduction in the Bay harvest.

Anecdotal accounts like charter captain Chris Newsome’s about difficult fishing deserve to be heard, but Robichaux takes that one named Chesapeake captain’s experience and turns it into an unsubstantiated coastwide conclusion. The story cites no coastwide survey, abundance index, standardized fishing data, additional named fishermen or geographic examples to support its assertion that anglers and fishermen throughout the Atlantic Coast are seeing the same pattern. An unspecified collection of anecdotes is not evidence of a coastwide biological trend. By presenting it that way, Robichaux seeks to create the appearance of broad corroboration while giving readers no way to assess how many people were consulted, where they fish or whether their experiences are representative.

 

The article omits important evidence of sustainable management
 

Robichaux reports that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission finds Atlantic menhaden not overfished, with overfishing not occurring, but he does not tell readers that the ASMFC already uses ecological reference points designed to account for menhaden’s role as prey or that it reduced the coastwide catch limit by 20 percent for 2026. It also omits that the U.S. Atlantic menhaden purse seine fishery is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council, following independent assessment against the MSC Fisheries Standard.

 

The economic figures are not comparable measures
 

The article compares an estimated $804 million spent on Atlantic recreational fishing trips involving menhaden with roughly $300 million in reported annual sales from Omega Protein’s combined Atlantic and Gulf operations and approximately 260 direct Virginia jobs reported by the companies in the Atlantic menhaden fishery. But it does not explain that the ASMFC’s 2026 Committee on Economics and Social Sciences review expressly describes historical modeling showing that direct harvesting and processing jobs sustain additional non-fishing employment in mechanics, logistics and local services including fuel and lubricants, repairs and maintenance, shipping, vehicle operations, supplies and food, utilities and telephone service, insurance and security, real estate rent, county property taxes and healthcare benefits.

But when it came to the recreational fishing contribution, the story cited a Southwick Associates study commissioned by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership that casts a very wide net in its economic assumptions, counting all tangential spending on entire fishing trips on which an angler used menhaden as bait, chum or scent. This means they counted anything including transportation, fuel, food, hotels and other purchases as an economic contribution of recreational fishing.

In short, the story’s comparison of the industries’ economics is apples and oranges.

Robichaux mentions the direct Virginia jobs but says nothing about the workers who hold them. UFCW Local 400 says Ocean Harvesters’ crews are overwhelmingly local and unionized and that the operation employs one of the largest minority workforces in Northumberland County. The union has documented collectively bargained increases in base pay, incentive rates and bonuses, as well as health-and-welfare benefits. These are family-supporting union jobs that provide strong wages and full benefits to workers, including many without college degrees—opportunities that no other employer in the Northern Neck provides on a comparable basis. The bigger issue remains that the article never illustrates how a reduction in the Bay Cap would benefit recreational anglers, but reductions would almost certainly result in economic harm to menhaden fishermen and their families. 

The ASMFC’s Committee on Economics and Social Sciences identifies the reduction industry as an important part of the Reedville-area economy. It also warns that high fixed costs mean a small reduction in fishing quota could cause larger unemployment effects. That analysis is relevant to any discussion of workers and communities affected by additional restrictions.

The ASMFC’s economic advisers warn that job losses in the reduction sector could be lasting because comparable work may be hard to find locally.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference raised that concern directly with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore. SCLC urged Maryland to consider how additional restrictions could disproportionately affect African American workers, union families and rural communities, and to weigh environmental stewardship together with economic justice and the consequences for workers and their families. Robichaux does not mention the union workforce or the civil rights organization’s intervention.

 

The February 18 letter does not show opposition to research
 

Robichaux introduces a February 18, 2025 letter from an industry government relations professional to Virginia Del. Betsy Carr and then immediately quotes Chesapeake Bay Foundation executive Chris Moore alleging that the industry is using scientific uncertainty to stall restrictions. CBF has repeatedly used this letter out of context to allege that the industry opposed research funding.

The companies explained to Robichaux that by February 18, the General Assembly was no longer considering the roughly $2 million needed for the full study; discussion had shifted to whether a reduced amount of funding could support useful interim work. The letter responded by proposing a two-year pilot to test aerial and hydroacoustic survey methods that had not yet been validated for estimating Chesapeake Bay menhaden abundance. It also called for a plan and budget for a peer reviewed research program and, as an alternative, recommended returning to the General Assembly in 2026. Read in full and in context, it proposed research under constrained funding and raised concerns about methodology.

What followed after February 2025 undercuts CBF’s characterization. When the 2025 Virginia session ended without funding the proposed comprehensive study, industry participants helped fund a Science Center for Marine Fisheries research roadmap involving VIMS, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and NOAA; supported a tagging feasibility study; and opened commercial vessels and processing operations to researchers. That record is inconsistent with Moore’s false claim about the industry’s motive.

The research effort gained substantial public funding in 2026: Virginia committed $2 million over two years, and Congress appropriated $2.5 million for Bay-specific research.

Commercial menhaden fishermen and processing workers support coastal communities and supply fishmeal, fish oil, nutritional products and bait to recreational and commercial fishermen from Maine to Louisiana. They deserve coverage that distinguishes observed osprey food stress from an unproven allegation of fishery causation, and that compares harvest and economic figures on an accurate basis.

 

Sources and documents cited

1. The Washington Post article addressed in this release, September 27, 2026.

2. William & Mary Center for Conservation Biology, 2026 Chesapeake Bay osprey breeding results and Atlantic Coast monitoring summary.

3. Peer-reviewed 2026 osprey study.

4. U.S. Geological Survey, Chesapeake Bay osprey diet study; USGS presentation to ASMFC, August 2024.

5. ASMFC, Chesapeake Bay Menhaden Work Group report, April 2025; Atlantic menhaden FAQs; and 2026 catch-limit announcement.

6. Marine Stewardship Council, U.S. Atlantic menhaden purse-seine fishery listing.

7. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, 2026 commercial fishing regulations and summary of the 2024 menhaden bycatch study.

8. ASMFC Committee on Economics and Social Sciences, updated employment and economic review, July 2026.

9. Southwick Associates, Atlantic menhaden recreational-fishing economic report, June 2026.

10. UFCW Local 400, menhaden workforce account and collective-bargaining announcement.

11. Southern Christian Leadership Conference letter to Maryland Gov. Wes Moore.

12. February 18, 2025 letter to Virginia Del. Betsy Carr and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s statement discussing the research dispute.

13. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Atlantic menhaden research and funding overview.

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.