Listen to the article
Conservation Groups’ Claims About Atlantic Menhaden Disputed by Industry Coalition
Four major conservation organizations are circulating claims about Atlantic menhaden management that don’t align with scientific assessments, according to a statement released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC). The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, American Sportfishing Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and American Saltwater Guides Association are advocating for significant cuts to menhaden quotas that the industry coalition says are not supported by current data.
At issue is the management of Atlantic menhaden, a small forage fish critical to marine ecosystems along the East Coast. The conservation groups argue that menhaden quotas should be cut by approximately 50 percent to protect predator species, particularly striped bass, which are currently under a rebuilding plan.
However, the MFC contends that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) already has an ecosystem framework that connects menhaden harvest to predator needs through Ecological Reference Points (ERPs). Under the current Total Allowable Catch (TAC) levels set since 2021, the menhaden stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring in an ecosystem context, according to the coalition.
“ERP-based management already protects predators by capping risk at the ERP fishing mortality threshold,” the coalition stated. “Under this system, menhaden are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring in an ecosystem context.”
The MFC specifically refutes several claims being circulated by the conservation groups. One central dispute involves the assertion that striped bass are starving due to lack of menhaden and require severe menhaden quota cuts to rebuild their populations. The coalition counters that striped bass rebuilding depends primarily on reducing striped bass fishing mortality, not increasing menhaden abundance.
“Chesapeake Bay workgroup monitoring from Virginia and Maryland reported healthy striped bass body condition; the fish are not underfed,” the MFC stated, adding that predators primarily consume young (age-0/1) menhaden, while the reduction fishery targets older (age-2+) fish, resulting in limited overlap.
Another disputed claim involves the need for dramatic coastwide cuts to avoid exceeding the ERP mortality target. The MFC argues that under National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the focus should be on preventing overfishing by staying below the mortality threshold, not necessarily achieving the target. The coalition suggests that a modest precautionary reduction of no more than 10 percent (to approximately 210,195 metric tons) would provide virtually no chance of overfishing in 2026.
The conservation groups’ assertion that previous TACs were too high because menhaden abundance was overestimated is also contested. The MFC notes that the 2025 assessment’s natural mortality re-estimation was empirically derived and independently reviewed, and despite changes to fecundity estimates, the stock status remains “not overfished” with “overfishing not occurring.”
The debate highlights the complex intersection of fisheries management, conservation interests, and commercial fishing livelihoods along the Atlantic coast. The menhaden fishery, which has existed for over 150 years, supports both a reduction industry that processes the fish into various products and smaller-scale bait fisheries that supply lobster and crab fishermen.
The MFC warns that the proposed 55 percent cuts would “devastate the 150-year-old reduction fishery, small-scale bait fishermen along the coast, and the lobstermen and crabbers who depend on them without helping striped bass fishermen.”
The coalition also points to ongoing research from the Science Center for Marine Fisheries that will provide more data on Chesapeake Bay-specific questions, suggesting that managers should wait for this new science before implementing additional localized restrictions.
As the ASMFC considers management actions for the coming years, this dispute illustrates the continuing challenges in balancing ecosystem protection with sustainable fisheries harvests in one of the nation’s oldest commercial fisheries.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
9 Comments
This debate highlights the ongoing tension between economic interests and environmental protection. I hope the regulators can find a middle ground that supports a viable menhaden fishery while also ensuring the long-term health of the broader marine ecosystem.
Well said. Striking that balance is critical, and it will likely require careful analysis of the latest scientific data and modeling to determine the appropriate harvest levels.
The menhaden fishery is an important economic driver, but its sustainability and environmental impact must be carefully balanced. I’m curious to see the specific data and models the industry is using to justify the current harvest levels, as well as the conservation groups’ analysis.
Good point. It’s critical that any management decisions are firmly grounded in the best available science to ensure the long-term viability of the fishery and the broader marine ecosystem.
The advocacy groups’ push for steep quota reductions does seem drastic, but I’m glad they’re raising concerns about the potential impacts on predator species. A more gradual, evidence-based approach may be prudent to ensure sustainable management.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. The industry claims the current quotas are supported by science, while the advocacy groups argue for more conservative limits to protect predator species. It would be helpful to have a detailed review of the latest scientific assessments to better understand the merits of each position.
Agreed, a thorough and impartial scientific review is needed to resolve this debate. The health of the menhaden population and its role in the broader ecosystem should be the primary considerations.
While I appreciate the industry’s perspective, I’m somewhat skeptical of their claims given the advocacy groups’ concerns about predator species like striped bass. Protecting the overall health of the ecosystem should be the top priority, even if it means more restrictive menhaden quotas.
Reasonable concerns, but it’s important to review the full scientific evidence before jumping to conclusions. Balanced and sustainable management is key for both the industry and the environment.