THE OTHER MENHADEN ISSUE

 

When the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board meets on November 10 and 11, most eyes will be focused on the debate over Addendum II to Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden.

Addendum II deals solely with the so-called Bay Cap, which currently sets a 51,000 metric ton limit on the amount of menhaden that the reduction fleet may remove from the Chesapeake Bay.  Depending on what the Management Board decides, the Bay Cap may be reduced, may be tied to estimates of coastwide menhaden abundance, and/or may be broken down into smaller, seasonal quotas.

A lot of thought and attention has been poured into Addendum II, largely due to claims that localized depletion of menhaden is leading to osprey nest failure, depriving Maryland pound netters of their share of the menhaden harvest, and also depriving larger marine predators, including striped bass, of an important forage species.  However, as Addendum II itself admits, the Bay Cap is a purely precautionary measure; neither localized depletion nor its supposed side effects on birds, fish, fishermen, and marine mammals has ever been confirmed by any rigorous scientific study.

Thus, the Addendum II debate has largely come down to anglers and conservation groups calling for reduced menhaden harvest, based on little hard data, while the reduction fleet calls for the Management Board to maintain the status quo until such data is developed, something that will probably take a few years.

It’s hard to predict what the Management Board will decide, but I suspect that it will make some sort of change, if only to break the Cap down into seasonal quotas.  But whatever it does, its actions will have little impact outside of the Chesapeake Bay, as the coastal catch limit will remain in place, so overall menhaden harvest isn’t likely to change significantly.

That’s why the first item on the Management Board’s agenda, “Set Specifications for 2027-2029 Fishing Years,” is arguably the more important issue.

Last year, the 2025 Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Update caught managers and stakeholders by surprise, after it determined that the natural mortality rate was lower than previously believed—M=0.92, rather than M=1.17.  That resulted in significant changes to the estimates of both fecundity—that is, overall egg production, which is used as the gauge of menhaden abundance—and the fishing mortality rate.  While menhaden were once believed to be above their fecundity target, with fishing mortality below target, the 2025 Update revealed that they were still neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing, but that fecundity was just 5% above the threshold that defines an overfished stock, while fishing mortality was above its target, although still well below the threshold level.

It turned out that, to have at least a 50% probability of reducing fishing mortality to the target level, thtotal allowable catch for 2026-2028 would have to be reduced from 233,440 to just 108,450 metric tons, a

That was a very big cut for the menhaden fishery to absorb in a single year, although perhaps not quite as big as it first appears, given that, in recent years, the menhaden industry has only landed about 80% of its TAC, with 2023 landings—the last year that was available at the October 2025 meeting—coming in at 181.75 metric tons.

But the menhaden industry wasn’t particularly fond of a 73 metric ton reduction, either.

In the end, after a long debate that saw a motion to cut the TAC to 108,450 metric tons defeated, and another motion to phase in the cut over three years also fail to get enough support, the Management Board decided to punt, and reduced the TAC by 20%--to 186,400 metric tons—which was effectively no cut at all, given that landings in both 2023 and 2024 were below that figure.  On the positive side, instead of setting the TAC for the next three years, the Management Board only established it for 2026, which is why we’re looking at the issue again this November.

When all is said and done, this is the issue that should be attracting the most attention.  Addendum II is a response to regional concerns, but has little data to support it.  The coastwide TAC will affect every state between Maine and Florida, and is supported by not just one, but two different stock assessments, the 2025 stock assessment update, which addresses menhaden in a single-species context, and also the 2025 Ecological Reference Point Benchmark Stock Assessment Report.

So, while people may debate localized depletion in the absence of definitive research, the fact that current fishing mortality is well above the target level is undisputably real.

The American Saltwater Guides Association has been following the menhaden TAC issue since it first arose last year, and recently advised that

“While most of the attention has been focused on Draft Addendum II and the Chesapeake Bay Cap, a potentially much larger conservation opportunity is developing separately.  On September 28^, the Menhaden Technical Committee and Stock Assessment Subcommittee presented preliminary projections for the 2027-2029 coastwide quota.  The current 186,840 metric ton TAC carries a 99.5% probability of exceeding the ecological fishing target in each of those years.  A TAC of 114,200 metric tons—a 39% reduction—gets that risk down to 50%.  At 110,200 metric tons, a 41% reduction, the probability of exceeding the target falls to 40%.  These are preliminary numbers presented on Monday and have not yet been published in the final ASMFC materials.

“This is NOT the same decision as Draft Addendum II…comments submitted on Draft Addendum II cannot substitute for comments on the coastwide TAC.  If you want the Board to hear from you on both issues, you need to comment on both issues separately.  That decision maters enormously; cutting the current 51,000 metric-ton Bay Cap in half would leave 25,500 metric tons of additional menhaden in the Bay, while a 40% coastwide TAC reduction would leave roughly 75,000 metric tons more menhaden in the ecosystem—nearly three times as much…

“So, if you’ve already commented on Draft Addendum II, you’re not finished.  Continue advocating for a fixed Chesapeake Bay Cap of 25,500 metric tons, but send a separate comment on the coastwide TAC to comments@asmfc.org with “Menhaden Ocean TAC” in the subject line…”

The Guides Association is calling for a 40% reduction in the coastwide TAC, which is pretty close to the 39%/114,200 metric ton cut that is needed to achieve a 50% probability of reducing fishing mortality to the target level.

In a rational world, such a reduction should be adopted as a matter of routine—after all, what is the purpose of having a target fishing mortality rate if you don’t strive to achieve it?—but I suspect that, come November, we’re going to see another bitter debate, with some members of the conservation community seeking to not only reduce the fishing mortality rate, but carry on their campaign to put the reduction industry out of business, while the reduction industry seeks to delay any reduction in the total allowable catch.

In such an environment, even common-sense management measures, such as reducing fishing mortality to the appropriate target, become controversial, and compromise becomes the only way to move forward.

Thus, although I’d certainly like to see the total allowable catch for 2027 reduced to the level that would provide no less than a 50% probability of reducing fishing mortality to its target, realistically, I would consider it a victory of the Management Board phased in a reduction that would finally achieve such 50% probability by 2029.

Even that will probably be difficult to achieve, particularly since the federal agencies, which long represented a rational, science-driven voice at the management table, have for the past year abandoned that stance in favor of one that is much more supportive of the fishing industry, regardless of impacts on the resource.

Given the expected difficulties, anyone concerned about menhaden conservation would do well to contact their state’s ASMFC representatives, and let them know that getting fishing mortality under control, and back to or under target, ought to be the Management Board’s first priority.

This could be the last chance to do so for the next three years.