AT LEAST FOR NOW, THERE'S NO SHORTAGE OF FORAGE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY

 

I’ve written about it before, but still become dismayed when fishery managers attempting to address a real problem seek public comment, and the public comes back with responses that neither answer the questions the managers ask nor reflect reality. 

Many of the comments received by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission with respect to Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, finalized earlier this year, fall into that category.

The Draft Addendum II sent out for public comment was a relatively simple document.  It explained that the striped bass stock remained overfished, that the stock was unlikely to rebuild by the 2029 deadline under the current management program, and proposed some options for additional, interim restrictions for the recreational and commercial fisheries that should help put rebuilding back on track until a stock assessment update scheduled for release in October provides more definitive guidance on needed management measures.  

The public was asked to comment on the various forms that such additional restrictions might take.  Nothing else was on the table.

Yet it was remarkable how many comments ignored the proposed management measures and instead said things like

“Banning highly technology- assisted [sic] commercial menhaden fishing, as it is currently practiced out of Reedville [Virginia], is the only route to [striped bass] recovery…,”

“I would like to know why there is no reference to the Menhaden Fishery in the bay as a contributing factor to the health of the striped bass fishery,”

and

“Why is the ASMFC refusing to acknowledge the effect of the menhaden reduction fishery on the ability of the striped bass population to rebound?  I don’t even target striped bass anymore where I live in Virginia Beach so you could enact a total moratorium for all I care.  Even a moratorium on recreational/commercial harvest won’t make a difference though, the fish need forage to rebound and their forage is being removed.  It’s really not that difficult to understand but it is an inconvenient truth for those that have been bought by Omega and its subsidiaries, and that’s why we are where we are.  Until there is a meaningful change there won’t be a meaningful recovery, either.”

What is most remarkable about such comments and the other 90 or so similar missives scattered among the more substantive comments addressing the issues described in Draft Addendum II—aside from their complete failure to respond to the questions asked in the Draft Addendum and their seeming attempt to convince the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board to regulate Atlantic Menhaden, something that it has absolutely no power to do—is the authors’ failure to provide any factual support for their allegations that a lack of menhaden is the, or at least one of the, primary reasons for the decline of the striped bass population, despite their absolute conviction that such is the case.

The simplest explanation for such lack of supporting data is probably that the claims of a menhaden shortage are just not true.

After all, the most recent stock assessment update for Atlantic menhaden found that

“The fishing mortality rate for the terminal year of 2021 was below the [Ecological Reference Point] target and threshold and the fecundity [which is used as a proxy for spawning stock biomass] was above the ERP target and threshold.  Therefore, overfishing is not occurring and the stock is not considered overfished.”

That is particularly relevant to the debate over the health of the striped bass stock, because the Ecological Reference Points used to evaluate the Atlantic menhaden population are directly related to the menhaden’s role as a forage fish, and its ability to support a fully-recovered striped bass population, for as an overview of the Atlantic menhaden stock assessment notes, the

“ERP target was defined as the maximum [fishing mortality rate] on Atlantic menhaden that would sustain striped bass populations at their biomass target when striped bass were fished at their [fishing mortality rate] target.”

If the fishing mortality rate for Atlantic menhaden is below the target rate, as is the case, and if the fecundity of the Atlantic menhaden stock is above the fecundity target, as is also the case, then there is, by definition, an adequate supply of menhaden to support a fully-recovered striped bass population, much less today’s overfished stock.

Thus, claims that there are too few menhaden to supply the striped bass population, and that a lack of menhaden has led to a striped bass decline, are patently false.

However, that evaluation is made on a coastwide basis.  The question of whether menhaden can be locally depleted, and whether intensive fishing in a single location might cause ecosystem harm, remains.  That is a recurring question in the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay, the only such inland waters where the industrial-level harvest of Atlantic menhaden is still allowed.

Thus, a recent op-ed in the Daily Press, a Virginia news outlet, included statements such as,

“Cooke Seafood of Brunswick Canada, and its wholly owned subsidiary Omega Protein of Reedsville take up to 110 million pounds on indiscriminately harvested menhaden every year from the Chesapeake Bay…This practice depletes the Bay of one of the most important fish of the sea—menhaden—a forage fish striped bass, ospreys and many other species are dependent upon. [emphasis added]”

Yet, once again, we need to ask the question:  Where is the data supporting such assertion?

Right now, no such data exists.  The Virginia state legislature was thinking about funding a comprehensive study of menhaden in Virginia waters, but for whatever reason—which might well include subtle pressure from the menhaden industry, although that has not been conclusively proven—that funding has been delayed and might never occur.

However, the state of menhaden aside, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that there is too little bait—the catch-all term anglers often use to refer to forage species—to support the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

The Chesapeake Bay Project, a collaboration between state agencies and NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office, issued its Forage Status and Trends Report for the Chesapeake Bay last November.  The report was intended to answer an important question,

“How is the Chesapeake Bay forage base changing over time, and is there enough food available for key predators?”

It seems that, while anglers and advocates tend to focus on the large, flashy forage such as menhaden, the fish tend to focus elsewhere, with the humble polychaete worm, and not the much-touted menhaden, being the most important forage in the Bay.  And the worms are doing pretty well.

As the Forage Status and Trends Report notes,

“Overall, forage abundance in the Chesapeake Bay exhibits high interannual variability, although some long-term trends were identified in the time series.  Abundances of young-of-the-year forage fishes have been relatively low since the 2000s compared to historic estimates.  Total benthic invertebrate biomass throughout the Chesapeake Bay appears to be relatively stable, fluctuating around an average, Tand perhaps exhibiting a slight increase over time.  The slight increase is probably driven by polychaetes, whereas mysid [shrimp] biomass appears to have declined over time.  Diet analyses determined that polychaetes were the most important prey taxa for a suite of Chesapeake Bay fish predators, but relative contributions of Atlantic menhaden and bay anchovy to diets have increased over time.  Insects also play a large role in the diet of resident striped bass in the shallow waters of the Bay tributaries.  Total annual consumption by all Chesapeake Bay predators examined (striped bass, summer flounder, Atlantic croaker, white perch, weakfish, spot) decreased substantially since 2004, leveling out around 2011.”

Again, there is no suggestion that there are too few menhaden in the Bay to support the striped bass.  Graphs provided elsewhere in the report illustrate the fact that, in the early 2000s, when striped bass biomass was reaching its peak, the proportion of Atlantic menhaden consumed by striped bass, as compared to other forage species, was at its lowest point in the time series.  The importance of menhaden, as a fraction of total prey consumed, actually increased as the striped bass declined; today, such importance is at or near its high level at any time in the current century, a fact that seems to rebut some anglers’ and organizations’ claims that the current state of the striped bass was caused by insufficient menhaden availability.

A similar pattern can be seen for an aggregate of all six predator species considered in the Report, with menhaden constituting a fairly low percentage of overall forage consumed for most of the time series, before sharply spiking upward, then declining just as quickly, in the mid-2010s.

So why are menhaden the focus of so much debate, and why does menhaden receive so much attention in the press?  Part of it undoubtedly stems from the fact that their big schools, frequently seen splashing across the surface of the Bay, are a very obvious part of the ecosystem, and draw substantial public attention.  And, because menhaden are such an obvious forage species compared to, for example, the small and rarely noticeable polychaete worms, they draw a lot of funding from the big foundations that finance conservation efforts by a host of non-governmental organizations.

But even if that is true, why do I keep harping on the issue?  After all, menhaden conservation is still a good thing, and increasing menhaden numbers shouldn’t do any harm, either in the Bay or elsewhere along the East Coast.

I do so because all of the hype about menhaden is providing some people and organizations an argument they can use in their efforts to thwart needed conservation measures for other, truly troubled species.

Going back to the comments to Draft Addendum II to the striped bass management plan, we find those of the Hi-Mar Striper Club of Middletown, New Jersey, which informed the ASMFC that

“Our members have seen and experienced the ‘peaks and valleys’ of Striped Bass stocks, and are obviously very concerned regarding the proper management of this fishery for the present and future.  The Hi-Mar Striper Club does not believe that the proposals included in Draft Addendum II will actually help with the management of Striped Bass to attain ASMFC’s projected stock rebuilding by 2029…Striped Bass stocks in Chesapeake Bay have been on the decline for many years due to several factors, including lack of forage fish (specifically, Menhaden due to the mismanagement of this fishery by Virginia and Maryland)… [emphasis added]”

A similar sentiment was expressed by another New Jersey organization, the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, which commented that

“there are more than enough striped bass in the [spawning stock biomass] to produce a very good spawn if we get the right conditions.  Further restricting commercial and recreational fishermen may not do much good.  However, one thing you can do is to eliminate [sic] or reduce the number of menhaden that are netted commercially in the Chesapeake Bay.  Increasing the number of menhaden would be beneficial to stripers of all sizes in the bay…  [emphasis added]”

Thus, the fallacy of a depleted menhaden stock continues to haunt the management process, potentially obstructing meaningful efforts to rebuild the striped bass stock.  As we begin to approach the October meeting of the ASMFC’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board, we need to be aware of such red herring, and of the likelihood that some in both the recreational and for-hire fisheries will attempt to use it to thwart needed harvest restrictions.

For that reason alone, it’s important to spread the word that there are plenty of menhaden on the East Coast, and sufficient forage in the Chesapeake Bay, to support the striped bass. 

The answer to rebuilding the spawning stock biomass of striped bass to target levels isn’t increasing menhaden abundance, but reducing fishing mortality.  So it is today, and so it has always been.

It’s something that everyone needs to remember when the time to make decisions draws near.