The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition and six shop stewards representing union fishermen participating in the Chesapeake Bay menhaden fishery are urging the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to maintain current allowable catch levels in the face of NGO criticism.
The ASMFC Menhaden Management Board is meeting on 7 May to discuss management of the species. In a letter to the board, members of the UFCW Local 400 union called on board members to listen to fishermen and adopt regulatory practices based on “sound scientific principles” rather than listen to environmental groups that claim the fishery is responsible for declines in other species in the Chesapeake Bay.
“Too often during public meetings on fisheries management, the voices of those of us who work directly in the menhaden fishery – and whose livelihoods depend on it – are dismissed as self-serving and frequently perceived as the ‘bad guys,’” the union wrote. “We are vilified by special interest groups and verbally threatened at-sea and online.”
At the center of the debate over the menhaden fishery is longstanding criticism from environmental groups that the practice of fishing for the species inside the bay is detrimental to other species that feed on the fish, such as striped bass. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has also argued the fishery is connected to an increasing number of osprey nest failures in the bay and, in the past, has successfully pushed for fishery managers to use Ecological Reference Points when deciding available quotas.
“Quite simply, menhaden are foundational to a healthy Chesapeake Bay and productive ecosystems throughout the Atlantic coast,” the foundation said. “Unfortunately, here in the Chesapeake Bay, menhaden science is incredibly lacking.”
The foundation said the main company fishing for menhaden in the bay, Omega Protein, is partly responsible for that lack of science and claims the company has suppressed scientific studies on the subject.
Omega Protein and Omega Harvesters have publicly supported research on the stock and actively participated in research efforts in the past; however, the two companies said a recent effort by Virginia legislators to fund a new untested research method for the species would be too risky.
“Given its economic significance, concerns arose about relying on an unproven method to make decisions affecting workers’ livelihoods,” the two companies said of the study, which ultimately failed to gain funding from the Virginia legislature.
As the debate over the fishery once again comes before the ASMFC menhaden board, the union said in its letter that environmental activist groups claim to be speaking in the public interest against the special interests of menhaden fishing companies – which it rejected as a means of pushing its own special-interest agenda for the gain of those respective organizations.
“There appears to be a widespread perception that environmental groups are merely looking out for the health of the Chesapeake Bay, free from any self-interest. In reality, these groups depend on contributions and grants that are easier to obtain when they can point to a crisis they claim to be addressing,” the union said.
The union said it has remained a scapegoat for wider issues in the bay like nutrient loading and shoreline hardening and that the fishery is currently at historically low harvest levels.
“Since 2006, our ability to fish in the bay has been cut by nearly two-thirds and is now only one-third of the harvest levels seen during the period when striped bass stocks were fully rebuilt,” the union said. “We can sustain no further restrictions.”
The union’s point about following the science was reinforced by a recent letter from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which indicated multiple environmental stressors – not just prey availability – are collectively responsible for osprey declines, the menhaden fisheries coalition said.
It also said that the trends in Chesapeake osprey are being seen in other parts of the country, with a leveling off of the osprey population since the banning of the pesticide DDT – which devastated birds of prey until its ban in 1972.
“While scientists have observed a leveling off of osprey populations between 2012 and 2022, populations remain high by historical standards,” the coalition said. “Furthermore, the USGS reports that this trend has been observed in numerous other locations including Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Delaware, as well as the Pacific Coast, raising serious questions about any impact from the menhaden fishery since there is no menhaden fishery in those locations.”
Based on the studies and the current historically low quota for commercial menhaden harvesters, the union is pushing the ASMFC to maintain the current fishing level.
“Every scientific assessment shows a healthy menhaden stock,” the union said. “Listen to the scientists at the USGS, who have identified multiple potential causes for the osprey’s challenges. Follow the advice of the Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee and the ERP Working Group when they deliver their recommendations this year.”
