Saving Seafood

ASMFC advances Atlantic menhaden proposal

August 6, 2026 — The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has voted to advance Draft Addendum II to Amendment 3 of the Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan for public comment, reviving a proposal that had been delayed earlier this year as commissioners sought additional work on the document.

The Aug. 5 vote by the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board marks the next step in a management debate that has divided industry representatives, conservation organizations and fisheries managers over whether additional restrictions are needed in the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery.

The company cited comments made during the meeting by Virginia ASMFC Commissioner Adele McClure, who questioned whether the public comment process should move forward before additional research is completed.

“Without that complete picture, without the proper Bay-specific data, I feel like we are putting the cart before the horse instead of availing ourselves to the upcoming studies and data that could finally guide us,” McClure said during the meeting, according to Ocean Harvesters’ summary of the discussion.

McClure also pointed to ongoing research efforts that she said could provide managers with more complete scientific information before making future management decisions.

“We finally got that funded in Virginia at $4.5 million. We have three studies, and this could guide us in the context of good science, which is good for both the public, for union workers, and the fisheries,” she said

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

ASMFC Atlantic Menhaden Board Approves Draft Addendum II for Public Comment Draft Addendum Considers Changes to Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap

August 6, 2026 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board approved Draft Addendum II to Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for public comment. The Draft Addendum considers options to reduce the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap (Bay Cap) by up to 50% and distribute the cap more evenly throughout the fishing season. The options aim to alleviate a concentration of effort that may be affecting other fisheries within the Bay and other potential ecological impacts.

The Draft Addendum was initiated in response to concerns regarding declining pound net harvest and catch per unit effort in the Bay in recent years, coinciding with an increase in the concentration of reduction harvest in the summer months, and the possible downstream effects on menhaden predators.

The Draft Addendum also includes options that link the Bay Cap to the coastwide total allowable catch to maintain a more fixed proportion between the two, as well as options to distribute the Bay Cap into three quota periods to prevent a concentration of reduction harvest in the spring and summer of the fishing season.

A press release will follow with details on the availability of the document for public comment, the public hearing schedule, and how to submit written comments. This information will also be available on the Atlantic Menhaden Draft Addendum II Action Tracker webpage. A public comment form will also be available as another option to submit input on the Draft Addendum’s specific options.

The Board will meet to review submitted comments and consider final action on the addendum in November 2026 at the Commission’s Annual Meeting in Newport, Rhode Island. For more information, please contact James Boyle, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at jboyle@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.

VIRGINIA: ASMFC Advances Menhaden Addendum for Public Comment Despite No Clear Definition of the Problem It Seeks to Solve

August 5, 2026 — The following was released by Ocean Harvesters:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board today voted to release Draft Addendum II to Amendment 3 of the Atlantic Menhaden Interstate Fishery Management Plan for public comment, despite the document’s failure to establish a demonstrated biological problem necessitating the new restrictions it proposes.

The draft addendum provides several options that would reduce the existing 51,000 metric ton Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap, automatically linking the cap to future changes in the coastwide Total Allowable Catch (TAC), and requiring Virginia to divide the Bay Cap into seasonal quota periods intended to redistribute harvest throughout the fishing season. Ocean Harvesters opposed releasing the document for public comment because it asks the public to consider specific management restrictions before establishing that an underlying biological problem exists.

A Statement of the Problem Should Include a Problem
The most obvious flaw in Draft Addendum II remains unchanged following today’s vote.

The document’s own “Statement of the Problem” begins with what “may” be happening, proceeds through what is “possible” and what “could” occur, and ultimately acknowledges that “there are currently not sufficient scientific data available” to comprehensively characterize the abundance and distribution of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay or the influence of fishing pressure. It nevertheless proposes new restrictions intended to address a problem it never defines.

The addendum assembles observations, uncertainties and hypotheticals but never demonstrates that Chesapeake Bay menhaden availability has declined because of the reduction fishery or that the proposed measures would produce any biological benefit.

Public Comment Does Not Cure the Scientific Defect
Sending the addendum to public comment does not resolve the absence of a defined biological problem.

The public is now being asked to consider specific restrictions—including further reductions to the Bay Cap, automatic adjustments tied to the coastwide TAC and seasonal quota periods—without a scientifically established Bay harvest threshold, without evidence that the current cap has failed, and without confidence that any particular option would improve ecological conditions.

Virginia’s ASMFC Commissioner Adele McClure raised issues with the timing of the public comment at the meeting.

“Without that complete picture, without the proper Bay-specific data, I feel like we are putting the cart before the horse instead of availing ourselves to the upcoming studies and data that could finally guide us,” she said. “I believe that the public would be better served as a whole if we had the scientific study results to better inform meaningful comments from the public and input from all parties, especially those closest to the issue.”

Specifically, she called on the Commission to wait until upcoming scientific studies are complete.

“We finally got that funded in Virginia at $4.5 million. We have three studies, and this could guide us in the context of good science, which is good for both the public, for union workers, and the fisheries,” she said.

Public comment can inform policy choices, but it cannot substitute for the scientific evidence needed to establish the problem those choices are supposed to solve.

The Commission’s Own Analysis Is Inconclusive

The Menhaden Technical Committee (TC)’s review did not establish a consistent relationship between the timing of reduction fishing and Maryland pound-net catches.

For 2023, the TC’s analysis found that Maryland pound-net catch rates during the second half of the year were generally equal to or greater than the recent average, “suggesting little influence of the reduction fishery on pound net catches.” For 2024, their analysis identified a different pattern but could not establish cause and effect and acknowledged that any relationship would depend upon fish movements and fishery dynamics at a finer spatial scale than the available analysis could evaluate.

That inconclusive record does not establish that seasonal quotas are necessary or that they would produce a measurable biological benefit.

The absence of supporting evidence is not new. In 2018, then-ASMFC Chair James J. Gilmore Jr. wrote that there was “no evidence in Amendment 3” showing that lowering the Bay Cap was necessary to protect the Chesapeake Bay as a nursery area for menhaden or other species. He added that Commission leadership agreed the amendment did not provide sufficient evidence to support those claims.

The Research Needed to Answer These Questions Is Already Underway
The Commission is moving forward just as significant public and industry-supported research is beginning.

The Science Center for Marine Fisheries has funded a collaborative research roadmap involving scientists from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and NOAA. The project is intended to identify the data, methods, costs and timetable needed to establish a scientifically defensible and ecologically meaningful Bay Cap. It is examining how future research could measure Bay-specific menhaden abundance, fishing mortality, movement between the Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters and availability to predators.

Virginia has also committed $2 million over two years to a VIMS-led Atlantic menhaden research program. The authorized work includes menhaden abundance and movement, predator consumption, timing and location of commercial fishing effort and localized depletion questions. The state budget expressly permits the VIMS work to build upon the SCEMFIS roadmap. Recent federal appropriations have also approved $2.5 million for NOAA to conduct a new menhaden survey in the Chesapeake Bay.

These complementary research efforts were created to produce the Bay-specific scientific information the Commission acknowledges is presently lacking. Yet the Board has advanced the addendum before either effort has produced its findings.

Public Comment Should Be Informed by Science
Today’s vote begins the public comment process; it does not resolve the scientific questions at the center of the proposal.

Ocean Harvesters encourages stakeholders to carefully review the addendum and consider whether it establishes a demonstrated biological problem, whether the proposed restrictions are supported by the available scientific evidence and whether additional management measures should be adopted before the ongoing research has been completed.

The company will participate fully in the public comment process and will continue to advocate for management decisions grounded in sound science, transparency and a clearly demonstrated biological need.

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.

Alaska golden king crab TAC rises 13 percent for 2026-27 season

June 26, 2026 — The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has announced a 2026-27 total allowable catch (TAC) of approximately 4.74 million pounds for Alaska golden king crab, a 13 percent increase from last season’s 4.19 million-pound harvest limit, according to a June 24 release from seafood supplier Keyport LLC.

The increase comes through adjustments across the fishery’s two Aleutian Islands management regions. The TAC east of 174° W longitude, which represents the core of the fishery, will decrease slightly from 3.32 million pounds to 3.184 million pounds. West of 174° W longitude, however, the TAC will increase from 870,000 pounds to 1.558 million pounds.

Golden king crab is managed across the eastern and western Aleutian Islands, with harvest limits allocated among Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ), Community Development Quota (CDQ), and the Adak Community Allocation (ACA) program.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

PFMC to host public meeting on salmon management alternatives

March 24, 2026 — Public comment is being sought by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) on March 24 on three proposed total allowable catch (TAC) alternatives for Chinook and coho salmon during the upcoming Oregon salmon seasons.

Options under consideration for north of Cape Falcon include TACs of 120,000 Chinook and 130,000 coho, 112,500 Chinook and 120,000 coho, and 97,500 Chinook and 90,000 coho, respectively.

The hybrid public meeting is set for 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Gladys Valley Marine Studies Building in Newport.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

North Pacific Fishery Management Council recommends big increase to 2026 Gulf of Alaska cod catch

February 11, 2026 — The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) has recommended a big increase in Gulf of Alaska (GOA) cod catch limits for 2026 and 2027.

The NPFMC’s latest action would increase the catch limit in the western and central Gulf of Alaska by 25 to 49 percent. The council’s revised recommendations would place the federal total allowable catch (TAC) for 2026 at 30,053 metric tons (MT), a significant bump from the 21,826 MT it recommended after a meeting in December. The acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the area was also increased to 41,250 MT.

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

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

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

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

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

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

What the record shows (brief)

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

Read the full analysis here

Examples of the inaccurate “recommendation” narrative (links)

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

ALASKA: NPFMC poised to roll over halibut, crab bycatch limits for 2026/27 in December

November 26, 2025 — Each December the North Pacific Fishery Management Council sets the Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for all groundfish species in federal waters of the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska for two years. Those waters – from three to 200 miles out – provide over 60% of Alaska’s total fishery landings.

This massive range covers approximately 900,000 square miles and includes over 140 fish and crab species through six different Fishery Management Plans (FMPs).

The value of the combined groundfish fisheries tops $2 billion annually at first wholesale (the value after primary processing). Of that, nearly 75% leaves the state of Alaska and goes primarily to Seattle.

The North Pacific Council also sets the rates of bycatch that go along with all those groundfish catches.

Bering Sea trawl bycatch tops the allowed takes of snow crab and Tanner crab for fishermen

Crab bycatch numbers are indicated as individual animals by fishery managers, but to make things more confusing, crab catches by fishermen are listed in poundage.

For the 2025/2026 season, crabbers are allocated 2.68 million pounds of red king crab. That equals about 382,857 crabs based on an average weight of 7 pounds each. The allowable trawl bycatch for red king crab is 97,000 animals.

For Snow crab (opilio), the fishermen’s catch of 9.3 million pounds adds up to 6.2 million individual crabs weighing 1.5 pounds on average.

The allowable trawl bycatch for Snow crab is 12,850,000 animals.

For bairdi Tanner crab, the crabber’s pots can haul up a total of 11.25 million pounds – 10.12 million pounds from the Western district and 1.13 million pounds from the Eastern district. That equals 3.75 million crabs, based on an average weight of three pounds per crab.

The allowable trawl bycatch for bairdi Tanners is 3.95 million animals.

By far, most of the crab and halibut bycatch is taken by the Seattle-based Amendment 80 fleet of nearly 20 huge factory trawlers that drag the bottom of the Bering Sea for flounders and other groundfish.

Read the full article at Alaskafish.news

The Northern Cod Quota Increase – a risky decision or a precautionary approach?

November 21, 2025 — Earlier this year, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) doubled the total allowable catch (TAC) in the Northern cod fishery off Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the same fishery that infamously collapsed and was officially closed to all commercial fishing activity in 1992. The DFO’s decision has, unsurprisingly, been very controversial.

For this post, we spoke to several experts to understand the decision-making process that reopened this fishery and increased the TAC for the upcoming season. We learned that the assessment process has evolved during the moratorium, incorporating more ecosystem considerations, such as capelin, a major food source for Northern cod. Other environmental factors may have hindered cod’s recovery, however. Some stakeholders seriously challenge the appropriateness of the reference points used to assess the population. There is wide disagreement on what a successful Northern cod fishery should look like in 2025 and beyond.

History of Northern cod

Northern cod landings surged significantly in the 1960s after European factory trawlers were introduced, enhancing fishing efficiency and catch volume. Before 1976, Canada could not enforce a 200-mile exclusive economic zone like it does now, so the cod fishery was practically open access. In 1968, catch peaked at 810,000 metric tons – roughly three times higher than the average annual catch in the 1950s.

10 years later, by 1978, the annual catch had plummeted to 138,500 metric tons. A brief rebound in the mid-1980s was followed by a population crash in the early 1990s.

Dr. Jake Rice, DFO’s chief scientist for nearly three decades and now emeritus, began his career studying terrestrial food webs before joining DFO in 1982 to study Northern cod. He was promoted to director of peer review and science advice for all of Canada’s fisheries in 1997. He spoke with us about the years before the moratorium:

Rice:

The first warnings came in the 1985-1986 stock assessments. Trends seemed to be heading in a different direction than expected, but we couldn’t explain why. The offshore fishery was skyrocketing, while the inshore fishery was having some of the worst summers in a generation. It became political and controversial. A review team, chaired by the late Dr. Lee Alverson, was appointed for further evaluation.

By 1990, we were more certain of the downward trend but still struggling to account for why it was happening. Foreign overfishing was the first boogeyman, but that theory was debunked after effective patrols proved this couldn’t be the primary cause. Next, it was seal predation, then it was discarding and underreporting. Every possible cause was considered.

Read the full article at Sustainable Fisheries UW