SOME THOUGHTS ON MENHADEN MANAGEMENT

Menhaden management has been in the news lately.

On the East Coast, the big news is that, after a fight that spanned more than two decades and began in the bad old days when the hungry foxes of the menhaden industry had effective control of the management henhouse, the Atlantic States Marine Commission may finally be ready to acknowledge the species’ role as a forage fish, and adopt management measures that account for menhaden’s value to the ecosystem, and not just to an industrial fishery.

An amendment to ASMFC’s Atlantic menhaden management plan will be debated at that organization’s annual meeting in October.  Prior to that, public hearings will be held, to obtain citizens’ input on that amendment, in nearly every state on the Atlantic seaboard.

In the Gulf of Mexico, anglers and conservation organizations have recently begun questioning whether the purse seine reduction fishery, which removed nearly 1.2 billion pounds of menhaden from the Gulf in 2015, is ecologically viable.  The renewed attention has been largely attributed to efforts by Omega Protein, the largest menhaden harvester in the nation, to have its Gulf operation certified as “sustainable” by the Marine Stewardship Council.

By some estimates, Omega may harvest as much as 90% of the menhaden landed in U.S. waters (it operates the only purse seine reduction fleet on the Atlantic Coast, where it landed more than 300,000,000 pounds of menhaden in 2015, in addition to its Gulf landings).  Naturally, it doesn’t go along easily with efforts to restrict its landings, and so its profits.

In its press releases and contacts with the media, Omega continually repeats that mantra that Atlantic menhaden are not overfished and that overfishing is not occurring, and that the Gulf menhaden

“stock is sustainably harvested.”

According to Ben Landry, who is responsible for Omega’s public relations campaigns,

“I don’t think there’s a lot of biologists on either coast who are concerned this stock is troubled or is being overfished.”

It sounds reassuring, but in uttering those words, Landry is completely ignoring the ecosystem/forage fish issue.  

That’s because the reference points currently used to manage the Atlantic menhaden stock are still focused on the menhaden alone—a “single-species management” approach that may accurately portray whether menhaden harvest is “sustainable”—that is, won’t cause the stock to decline in abundance—but do not inform managers as to whether there are enough menhaden available to serve their traditional role as food for a wide variety of predators, ranging from other fish to birds such as osprey, bald eagles and various seabirds, to marine mammals up to and including the great whales.

In the Gulf, where there is no organization analogous to ASMFC with the ability to enforce the provisions of a comprehensive management plan (the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission exists, but in a solely advisory capacity), and menhaden management is the sole province of the five Gulf states, there is no clear definition of what “overfished” and “overfishing” even means with regard to menhaden, and much less to the overall environment.

Thus, at the current time, no one can prove Landry, and his bosses at Omega, wrong if they say that menhaden are not overfished, overfishing isn’t occurring, and even that the current harvest levels are sustainable over the long term.  

From a purely semantic perspective, they are probably correct. 

However, whether the current levels of harvest have a negative impact on the ecosystem, and are the best use of what must be considered a keystone species, is another question altogether.

A similar issue exists with respect to bycatch—non-targeted species that are incidentally caught and killed in the very large purse seines used to harvest menhaden.

The fishing industry is quick to dismiss the bycatch issue, with one public relations website, savingseafood.org, saying that

“The menhaden fishery is known to be one of the ‘cleanest’ in the world in terms of the amount and rate of by-catch.  All studies have concluded that the by-catch in the menhaden fishery is insignificant.  Studies show that in both the Atlantic and Gulf menhaden fisheries, by-catch is less than one percent by weight of the total catch.  Of that one percent, more than 90 percent of by-catch is non-recreationally-important species like mullet and croaker.”

Again, while that statement is technically correct (at least, except for the last sentence, which is based on data from the Gulf of Mexico; last year, anglers in the Gulf harvested over one million croaker and more than two million striped mullet, making it hard to say that either species is “non-recreationally-important), it intentionally conceals a bigger truth—that even if bycatch is “less than one percent by weight of the total [menhaden] catch,” one percent of 1.2 billion pounds (in the Gulf alone) is still a very big number.

If bycatch was fully 1% of Gulf menhaden landings—and we don’t know that, because such data is, for reasons of questionable government policy, considered confidential business data and not released to the public—we’d be talking about 12,000,000 pounds of fish dumped and destroyed just so Omega could sell fish meal to China.  That seems like a bit of a waste.  Even if that number was considerably smaller, and at least one study suggests that bycatch might be closer to one-half of one percent than the full one percent figure, we’re still talking about a lot of wasted, which might be particularly significant when it comes to particular species.

The croaker and mullet dismissed in the savingseafood.org piece come to mind.  If they truly constitute 90% of the reduction fleet’s bycatch in the Gulf, we’re talking about 10.8 million pounds of fish—well over three times the weight of both species, combined, taken by anglers—that could have been enjoyed by anglers or, particularly in the case of mullet, could have nourished the fish that anglers and commercial fishermen pursue, but were instead rendered into industrial products by Omega—assuming that they were used at all.

There is also a significant impact on larger species.  

In the Gulf, the menhaden fishery is estimated to have killed 363 metric tons—nearly 800,000 pounds—of blacktip sharks in 2003.  Blacktips are a popular recreational and commercial shark species; in 2003, those fisheries landed approximately 181,000 pounds and 1.4 million pounds, respectively.  Thus, blacktip bycatch in the Gulf menhaden reduction fishery was more than 4 times the recreational landings, and about 57% of the commercial harvest, representing a significant waste of a valuable natural resource.

We see much the same story on the East Coast, where somewhat better data is available.  There, in 2003, the menhaden reduction fishery was estimated to have killed 437.3 metric tons—over 960,000 pounds—of Spanish mackerel, an amount equal to more than 60% of the recreational landings that year.  

It is also estimated to have killed 242.7 metric tons—more than 530,000 pounds—of striped bass.  While that is well below either the recreational or commercial harvest, it still represents a waste of an important resource, and the most prized sportfish that swims in the waters of New England and the upper mid-Atlantic.

As we go into the ASMFC menhaden hearings, leading up to the decision on the new amendment, and its ecological reference points, in October, we’re certain to hear the menhaden industry argue against any changes, and for an increase in their harvest.

We will hear them say that the stock’s not overfished, that there’s no overfishing, that the fishery is sustainable, and that bycatch is relatively small.

And all that is true.

But with a broader and more encompassing vision, it’s easy to realize that those truths aren’t the ones that really matter, because there are greater truths that should be given precedence. 

In the overall scheme of things, it is far more important that enough menhaden remain in the water, to fulfill their role as a keystone forage species, than it is to harvest enough menhaden to make Omega’s shareholders happy, even if that harvest is arguably sustainable.

And while bycatch might be small, when compared to the menhaden landings, it still represents a very large quantity of wasted fish, and can have a substantial impact on individual species--an impact comparable to, or substantially greater than, directed commercial or recreational landings.

So listen to the justifications with a knowing ear, and don’t be led astray.  

If you’re on the East Coast, come out to the hearings when they’re held in your state, and speak out in favor of a new direction in fisheries management, which recognizes that entire ecosystems matter, and will help to fully restore menhaden to their proper role in the waters off our coasts.

If you’re in the Gulf, your fight has just begun.  But we on the East Coast can tell you that it is a fight that is very worthwhile, and a fight that can be won, though it may take some time to do it.

Wherever you are, we have some work to do.