Listen to the article
The environmental organizations pushing for drastic cuts to Atlantic menhaden fishing quotas are making claims that conflict with scientific assessments and current management frameworks, according to recent statements from fishing industry representatives.
The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) has challenged assertions made by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, American Sportfishing Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and the American Saltwater Guides Association regarding menhaden management and its relationship to striped bass populations.
At the center of the dispute is how the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) should set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits for menhaden, a small oily fish critical to both commercial fisheries and the marine food web along the Atlantic coast.
According to the MFC, current management already incorporates ecosystem considerations through Ecological Reference Points (ERPs) adopted in 2021. Under these guidelines, the menhaden stock is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing in an ecosystem context.
The coalition specifically challenges claims that striped bass populations are suffering due to menhaden shortages. They point to scientific assessments indicating that “minor changes in Atlantic menhaden harvest rates are not expected to have major negative effects on most predators.”
Monitoring data from both Virginia and Maryland show healthy striped bass body condition, contradicting assertions that the fish are underfed, according to the MFC. They also note a key ecological reality: predators primarily consume younger menhaden (age 0-1), while commercial reduction fisheries target older fish (age 2+).
The coalition argues that proposals for cuts up to 55% in menhaden quotas are not supported by the scientific risk framework and would devastate the century-and-a-half-old reduction fishery, along with small-scale bait fishermen and the lobster and crab industries that depend on them.
Marine biologists have indicated that striped bass rebuilding efforts should focus on reducing fishing mortality rates for the species itself rather than dramatically cutting menhaden harvests. The MFC notes that recent striped bass recruitment challenges in the Chesapeake Bay are not attributed to menhaden shortages by fishery scientists.
“Rebuilding success depends on keeping striped bass fishing mortality low and hoping for improved recruitment,” the coalition stated, pointing out that recent strong year classes of striped bass were impacted more by direct fishing mortality than by any forage deficit.
The menhaden fishery has been under heightened scrutiny in recent years as conservation groups have pushed for ecosystem-based management approaches that consider the fish’s role as forage for predator species. The ASMFC adopted its current ERP framework in response to these concerns.
Industry representatives maintain that the 2025 stock assessment’s natural mortality re-estimation was empirically derived and independently reviewed, making it the most scientifically sound basis for management decisions. They reject claims that past TACs were set too high due to overestimated menhaden abundance.
If managers seek extra precaution, the coalition suggests a modest reduction of no more than 10% to approximately 210,195 metric tons, which they say would produce virtually no chance of overfishing in 2026 and only about 1% risk if maintained through 2028.
The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between commercial fishing interests and recreational fishing and conservation groups over how to balance ecosystem health with sustainable harvests. Both sides claim to be following the science, though they reach dramatically different conclusions about appropriate harvest levels.
The menhaden fishery, one of the oldest continuous fisheries in the United States, supports both the production of fish oil, fish meal, and other products through reduction fishing, as well as bait supply for other commercial fisheries along the Atlantic coast.
The ASMFC is expected to consider updated menhaden quotas based on the 2025 assessment in upcoming meetings, where these competing interpretations of the science will likely feature prominently in deliberations.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
This highlights the constant tension between environmental protection and economic interests in natural resource management. It’s rarely a simple black-and-white issue. Hopefully the regulators can carefully weigh all the evidence and stakeholder concerns to reach a sensible compromise.
Striped bass populations are important for both commercial and recreational fishing. If menhaden shortages are truly impacting them, that’s a serious issue that warrants action. But the industry claims the data doesn’t support that link – the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.
Agreed, the impact on striped bass is a key factor here. Both sides seem to have their own interpretations of the data, so an independent scientific review could help resolve the dispute.
The push for drastic cuts despite the industry’s claims of sustainable management is concerning. Significant quota reductions could severely impact fishing communities. I’d like to see the full scientific assessments to better understand the basis for the environmental groups’ position.
Exactly, the environmental groups need to back up their calls for steep cuts with clear data and analysis. Simply asserting the fishery is unsustainable isn’t enough – the regulators need rigorous evidence to justify major management changes.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. Balancing commercial fishing needs with ecosystem management is always tricky. It would be helpful to see the full scientific assessments and data to better evaluate the claims made by each group.
Agreed, transparency around the data and analysis is key here. Without a clear view of the science, it’s hard to judge the merits of the differing positions.
This is a classic case of competing interests and perspectives in natural resource management. It’s crucial that policymakers rely on the best available science and input from all stakeholders to find an equitable solution that balances conservation and economic needs.
Menhaden are a critical forage species, so it’s understandable the environmental groups want to ensure their populations are protected. At the same time, the fishing industry relies on sustainable harvests. Hopefully a balanced solution can be found.
That’s a good point. Menhaden play a vital role in the marine ecosystem, but the livelihoods of fishermen also need to be considered. It will take careful negotiation to strike the right balance.
I’m curious to learn more about these ‘Ecological Reference Points’ that the industry group says account for ecosystem impacts. If the science shows the current management is sustainable, that’s good, but the environmental groups may have valid concerns that need addressing.