MENHADEN ADVOCACY: A LOW-COST CAUSE FOR REECREATIONAL FISHING ORGANIZATIONS

 

Lately, the news has been filled with articles about various recreational fishing organizations arguing for stricter menhaden management measures.  Usually, such measures take the form of restrictions on the big industrial harvesters—the so-called “reduction fleet”—whether such harvesters are purse seining Atlantic menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay or Gulf menhaden off the shores of Louisiana.

It’s probably the perfect cause for such organizations to take up, as it allows them to assume the mantle of conservationists, while arguing for regulations that will only impact the commercial fleet and will not place any additional burden on the recreational fishery.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  Low-trophic level fish such as menhaden are a critical part of the food web, providing forage for everything from king mackerel and bluefish to ospreys, bald eagles, and humpback whales.  And the menhaden boats don’t only catch menhaden.  There is strong evidence that significant numbers of red drum are taken as bycatch in the menhaden fishery, both in the Chesapeake Bay and in the Gulf of Mexico; some recreational fishing groups also allege that reduction fleet bycatch in the Gulf also extends to speckled trout, jack crevalle, and croaker.

Bycatch aside, the menhaden reduction fishery causes other forms of environmental damage.  When the boats operate in shallow waters, there is a real risk that the bottom edge of the weighted purse seines reach all the way to the bay floor, tearing up submerged aquatic vegetation and otherwise degrading important habitat.

There is also a concern that the reduction fleet can, by concentrating fishing activities on a relatively small area for a period of time, cause localized depletion of the menhaden resource, even if the overall stock is deemed healthy.  While incidents of such localized depletion have not been conclusively proven, a scientific paper published last April suggests that a recent decline in osprey nesting success along parts of the Virginia shore of the Chesapeake Bay can be linked to a decline in menhaden abundance.  However, the connection between such decline and the reduction fishery so far remains speculative.

Thus, all things considered, advocating for a healthy menhaden population makes sense, as both Atlantic and Gulf menhaden play a very important role in coastal ecosystems.

At the same time, when recreational fishing groups begin to focus most of their conservation efforts on menhaden stocks, which are generally healthy, and ignore—or worse, oppose-- needed management measures for marine finfish that are often sought by anglers, such groups’ commitment to conservation might well be questioned.

We see such situation playing out right now in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly off Louisiana, where organizations such as the Coastal Conservation Association and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership are engaged in an aggressive effort to place new restrictions on the menhaden reduction fishery. 

To the extent that such organizations are working to create a buffer zone that would require the reduction boats to stay at least one mile off the Louisiana coast, and so minimize the harm that their nets might cause to shallow bottom habitats, their efforts make sense.  In fact, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has heeded their pleas, and is considering putting such a rule in place; the state’s Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, meeting last week, voted 4 to 2 in favor of approving a “notice of intent” to propose such a measure, initiating the rulemaking process.

However, things start getting iffy when angling organizations suggest that management measures are needed to conserve the Gulf menhaden itself.  Thus, when David Cresson, the Executive Director of Coastal Conservation Association Louisiana, calls Louisiana the

 “Wild West for the menhaden industry,”

and complains that the reduction fleet lands nearly one billion pounds of menhaden each year, seemingly suggesting that such landings are not biologically justifiable, he begins to leave reason behind.

In fact, the Gulf menhaden population is in good shape.  The most recent benchmark stock assessment, completed in 2018, found that the stock is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing.  It went on to note that

“The Gulf Menhaden reduction fishery is one of the largest fisheries by volume in the United States and has been successfully managed under a regional Fishery Management Plan since 1978.  The fishery continues to be classified by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as ‘not overfished’ with ‘no overfishing occurring’, and a population that is sustainable based on the most recent stock assessment.  Through the partnerships, which have been developed among NMFS Beaufort Laboratory, the state marine agencies, the menhaden industry, and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC), the Gulf menhaden fishery-dependent data set is one of the most detailed and data-rich of the fisheries currently operating in the Gulf of Mexico [references omitted]”

 A stock assessment update performed in 2021 confirmed that the Gulf menhaden stock was neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing.’

Thus, there is no indication that the reduction fishery, at its current harvest level, is threatening the health of the Gulf menhaden stock.

Unfortunately, not all fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico are as healthy as menhaden, and this is where things get interesting, at least with respect to the recreational organizations’ supposed commitment to conservation.

Louisiana’s speckled trout stock has been in trouble for a long time.  State fishery managers have stated that

“overfishing and other factors have caused the stock to have become almost completely comprised of smaller, younger fish.  While there are still some older and larger trout out there, nearly 95 percent of today’s stock is comprised of one and two-year-old fish.  While it is true that larger fish are more likely to be female (and have more eggs per individual), these smaller fish make up the vast majority of spawning stock biomass (reproductive potential).  Given the imbalance, there is concern that a major collapse could occur in the event of a poor recruitment year (e.g., a major freeze).  By decreasing the current creel limit and raising the maximum size, it is hoped that more of these young fish will be allowed to spawn and help the stock recover while rebuilding the older classes of females.”

Given the overfished state of the speckled trout stock one might logically expect Coastal Conservation Association Louisiana, which was such a strong advocate of additional regulations to protect the undoubtedly healthy Gulf menhaden stock, to demand that Louisiana take immediate, meaningful action to rebuild the speckled trout population.  However, just the opposite occurred.

Instead of supporting Louisiana’s proposal to increase the minimum size and decrease the speckled trout bag limit, in order to rebuild the stock, CCA Louisiana declared that”

“Moving to a 13- or 13.5-inch minimum size seems drastic and unnecessary.  Such a change could damage the female population, and will certainly have tremendous negative impacts on many businesses who depend on recreational anglers, like charter operators, marinas, bait shops, lodges and others.”

CCA Louisiana opposed any effort to increase the size limit beyond the current 12 inches, and supported a meaningless reduction in the bag limit from 25 to 15 fish, a reduction that would have minimal impact on the recovery of the speckled trout population since, even under the current rules,  

“Louisiana anglers harvest less than 2 trout per trip on average.”

CCA Louisiana went on to make the seemingly incredible statement that

“Based on our experience, changes in recreational regulations have rarely, if ever, resulted in a direct fishery recovery,”

and blames a

“coastwide and regional forage reduction,”

rather than overfishing, for the speckled trout’s woes.

CCA Louisiana is demonstrating far less zeal in addressing recreational fishing’s impacts on the overfished speckled trout stock than it has attacking the commercial fishery for the healthy and fully rebuilt Gulf menhaden. 

In expressing its desire to substantially restrict the commercial Gulf menhaden harvest, while opposing meaningful restrictions on Louisiana’s recreational speckled trout fishery, recreational organizations in the Gulf of Mexico have again demonstrated the truth of the old adage that it is always easier to conserve someone else’s fish, rather than one’s own.

For talking about conservation, and imposing conservation measures on others, is not enough.  An organization, like an individual, demonstrates a real commitment to conservation only when it calls for restrictions on its own troubled fisheries, and willingly bears whatever burden is needed to restore such fisheries to long-term health.

Anything less is mere hypocrisy.