Time is now to protect menhaden

[Sea Gristle]

Time is now to protect menhaden
--------------------

Candus Thomson -- On the Outdoors


May 8, 2005


THERE ARE TIMES when I don't feel like playing fair, usually because
someone else isn't.

This is one of those times.

Wednesday, the regulatory body that manages many of the Atlantic fish will
meet again to discuss how to protect menhaden, and perhaps by extension,
the future of striped bass and the Chesapeake Bay.

Everyone who remembers the five-year striped bass moratorium agrees
something must be done to protect the small, oily fish that is not eaten
by humans but is a major food source for other critters.

Everyone, that is, except the company making a profit by scooping up as
many Chesapeake Bay menhaden as it can get. Omega Protein is trying every
tactic possible -- divide and conquer, lawyer threats and bad-faith bargaining --
to derail efforts by the Menhaden Management Board of the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).

On the table Wednesday is a proposal to temporarily cap the number of fish
caught by the commercial fleet out of Reedville, Va., to give scientists
time to determine if overfishing is occurring and if so, the extent of the
damage.

The ceiling, proposed at the ASMFC February meeting, is based on the
average catch over the past five years. Omega, the Texas company that owns the
commercial fleet, could continue fishing at about its current level while
scientists do their work. No downtime. No layoffs.

Fair and reasonable, right?

The Ehrlich administration thinks so, as do the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
the Coastal Conservation Association, the Maryland Saltwater
Sportfishermen's Association and Maryland Sens. Paul Sarbanes and Barbara
Mikulski.

Even Larry Simns, president of the Maryland Watermen's Association and an
ASMFC representative, told his fellow commissioners that while it was
difficult to "go against fellow fishermen," he concluded: "The only
[thing] we can really manage is the fishermen. I've been on the receiving end of
that enough to know it's not an easy pill to swallow. But I think the
prudent thing for us to do is cap it."

But not Omega, which began sending trawlers out last week -- aided by
spotter planes -- bound and determined to net every school it can find
before the commercial season ends in October.

Menhaden aren't just any fish. In addition to feeding striped bass and
other species, they filter bay water. Half of the menhaden caught each year on
the East Coast come from the bay.

Omega scoops them up and grinds them into fertilizers, food additives,
animal feed and fish oil that goes into Omega-3 pills. The so-called
reduction fishery and processing frenzy makes Reedville the nation's
third-largest commercial fishing port, when measured by tonnage of catch.

Every state along the Atlantic, except Virginia, has banned commercial
seine purse netting. But a ban ain't worth jack when the biggest loophole is at
the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.

Profits have been falling at the fish factory, from $12.2 million in 2002
to $5.8 million in 2003 to $3.2 million last year.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Omega executives, who
recently spent $20 million on a new plant in Reedville, have decided to start
throwing elbows.

For argument's sake, let's say that Omega is right. Commercial fishing
isn't depleting the menhaden population. It's warm water or low oxygen or the
fact that menhaden don't like Maryland politics. You'd still want to slow
commercial harvest until you figured out if you could fix the problem,
right? Because what's the sense of fixing it if you don't have any fish
left to populate the place when you're done?

But that logic doesn't help Omega's bottom line. To make money, it has to
keep catching as many fish as it can, even as that number decreases every
year. It has to protect its turf.

To that end, one of Omega's suits met early last month with officials of
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in a divide-and-conquer attempt to get them to
buy into the company's "conservation initiative."

First, Omega wants a "voluntary" three-year cap of 135 metric tons
annually. It arrived at the number by taking catch from 1997 to 2003, throwing out the lowest two years and using the average.

Second, it doesn't want to incur any penalties if its fleet exceeds the
ceiling.

Third, the company plans to do an end-run on the regulatory commission and
take its case to Congress.

Finally, Omega warned that it would sue the pants off anyone or anything
attempting to cap its operation.

Normally, this would be the place in the column where an Omega official
would have his say. But as I said, I'm not playing fair.

Luckily, foundation officials refused to negotiate behind the backs of its
partners, including Menhaden Matters, an umbrella organization of
concerned parties.

What's wrong with Omega's picture? Two things jump out.

The most obvious is that Omega's proposed cap is 40 percent higher than
what its trawlers caught in 2004, and more than 20 percent higher than what the
management board proposed.

Further, even though the data on the 2004 catch are available (and the
numbers are substantially lower than those of previous years), they are
conveniently being ignored so as not to put the kibosh on Omega's
non-ceiling ceiling.

The company's puppet on the ASMFC -- a Virginia representative,
naturally -- tried to spike the proposed ceiling during the February meeting by waving around a threatening letter from Omega's law firm. The move backfired.

In seconding the motion on the cap, Maryland's Pete Jensen reminded his
fellow commissioners of the striped bass moratorium: "We have had too many
experiences where we waited too long to be cautious, and we know what
happens ... it magnifies the kinds of actions we have to take in order to
correct a problem that gets away from us."

At this week's ASMFC meeting in Alexandria, Va., a vote is expected on a
motion to allow the public to comment on the proposal to temporarily cap
the harvest.

It's up to Maryland's representatives to hold firm and insist that the
public be heard.

As Jensen said: "I can't think of a better way to debate this issue than
to go through a public process. There certainly is lots of public interest,
and it's not going to go away. We are going to have to deal with it. It is not
appropriate or reasonable or responsible to say we'll wait until we get
more information."

[Norm Bartlett]

MENHADEN MATTERS-When will our conservation folks come out against the wasteful polluting practice of chumming with ground menhaden? You won't find them if you continue to grind them. MOST Frozen chum originates in Reedville Va.

I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT OILY FISH SUCH AS MENHADEN ARE 30% oil. You can buy IT for $15 a gallon at BASS PRO. They recomend adding it to what ever your using for chum or put it out with a drip tube. The source of this oil is Reedville vA. .

Norm

[rbr]

Norm Bartlett originally wrote:
MENHADEN MATTERS-When will our conservation folks come out against the wasteful polluting practice of chumming with ground menhaden? You won't find them if you continue to grind them. MOST Frozen chum originates in Reedville Va.

I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT OILY FISH SUCH AS MENHADEN ARE 30% oil. You can buy IT for $15 a gallon at BASS PRO. They recomend adding it to what ever your using for chum or put it out with a drip tube. The source of this oil is Reedville vA. .

Norm


Norm that may well be, but you know damned well that
menhaden used for chum is just small pimple on a very
fat a$$ that is the tons of fish Omega sells for other purposes.

That said I have no problem urging people not to buy
menhaden oil and use only locally caught chum.

Bert

[Norm Bartlett]

Bert-That small pimple is contributing to the spreading diseases such as mycobacteriosis. Homocide is a very small portion of the human cause of death, on those grounds should we legalize it? The compared too argument is wimping out as far as I'm concerned.

I'm looking foreward to letting a Federal judge decide!

Norm

[stanleybros]

Boy, I get a big kick out of reading threads like this. Please continue.

Yeah yeah, shutdown the menhaden fishery but first, let me get a hundred pounds for chum. Yeah, right on!

Can anyone say "P R I N C I P L E?"

[Sea Gristle]

Actually it's P R I O R I T I E S. Tackle the big problems first. If the government gets serious enough about bay pollution, chumming will eventually have to go. But it really is a drop in the proverbial chum bucket. A menhaden swimming is better for the bay than one ground up and thrown back in. Besides the rec fishing community is fragmented and unorganized and will most likely be unable to mount much of a defense when push comes to shove.

[stanleybros]

It's just maybe neither principal or piorities, it maybe nothing less then G R E E D!

The same people that want to shut down the menhaden fishery, want to outlaw gill net fishing, Few have the balls to say such but, its obvious. CCA included.

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

Why not outlaw gill nets or for that matter all commercial fishing for Striped Bass? After all, doesn’t the rec sector contribute the most money to the economy? They should be entitled to harvest all the Striped Bass.

Following that line of thinking, maybe it should be carried one step further.

The rec fishermen, who fishes from shore, only buys tackle, therefore, he should be allowed only to harvest one Striped Bass every 2 weeks. He contributes the least to the economy.

The rec fishermen, who fishes from a small Jon Boat, has bought an inexpensive boat and the minimum of tackle, should be allowed to harvest one Striped Bass every 10 days.

I guess everyone gets the picture. Perhaps if you advocate greed, you may become the victim of greed.

[paxfish]

"Boy, I get a big kick out of reading threads like this. Please continue.

Yeah yeah, shutdown the menhaden fishery but first, let me get a hundred pounds for chum. Yeah, right on!

Can anyone say "P R I N C I P A L?" "

Can you spell it?[wink]

[stanleybros]

I looked at that word for 10 mins and according to Mr. Webster, it is spelled correctly. Looks funky cause it's in caps I guess.

[Purdue1]

Its appears to be G R E E D and maybe combined with I G N O R A N C E.

[stanleybros]

P R I N C I P L E That make ya day or night any better Perdue?

[Purdue1]

SB, your spelling doesn't bother me. My day and night are always great!

[Sea Gristle]

Who’s greed are we talking here? Methinks you refer to the “greedy” rec fisherman whose sole purpose in life is to drive those “greedy” commercial fisherman out of business. It is more likely to happen by overfishing than it is by legislation.

Fisherman who use menhaden for bait (that would be the “greedy” crabbers too, yes?) are a market just like the dog food companies and the pill makers. Everybody is part of the problem, some more, some less.

Is a #1 Jimmie cheaper now than when they were more plentiful? Nope. I say decrease the supply through regulation and the price will go up. You think people are going to stop feeding their pets? The price rise will make up for the reduction in volume. There will be more food in the bay for the rockfish and the water will be cleaner.

[stanleybros]

Oh. Kinda like OPEC and crude oil price fixing.

[Sea Gristle]

Yep. Look at the bright side - the byproduct of expensive gas is cleaner air.

[Matt]

I read a posts a few back and thought, 'this is twice in one day I agreed with a CCA guy on conservation.' Then I realized paxfish had cut and pasted SBs post.

This ongoing "conservation" struggle over menhaden might be the most prolonged attempt at disingenuous self-indulgence by any user group in the history of marine management. CCA doesn't care about menhaden. This is a thing to get netters out of recs' way.

Sure menhaden are important to the marine environment. So are Oysters. Yes, purse seining takes loads of menhaden. So do pound nets. Here's an idea to make it fair for everybody: lets take an area and make sanctuary from all forms of fishing. Everybody suffers equally, right? Wrong. The CCA fishing club is the first and loudest to complain, to a point of fear mongering.

Nothing personal fellas, but CCA needs to put up or shut up. Time is not now to protect menhaden. Va's state legislature will not allow it. Time is now to figure out why this campaign isn't going anywhere.

[Sea Gristle]

Matt originally wrote:
CCA doesn't care about menhaden. This is a thing to get netters out of recs' way.
Sure menhaden are important to the marine environment. So are Oysters. Yes, purse seining takes loads of menhaden. So do pound nets.


It's only my opinion, but I don't think the menhaden fight is about HOW they are harvested, but HOW MANY. I haven't read the CCA bible but I feel fairly certain it doesn't say "thou shall not net". CCA makes no secret that is a group of people who like to catch fish with hook & line, and its issues are pro hook & line . Oysters are important but their aren't many folks who join CCA to fight for the oyster so being a volunteer organization it doesn't get as much support as it should. However I think oysters will take much longer to reestablish to the benefit of water quality than reducing the amount of menhaden removed annually.

Not to go to far down the oyster-paved road, but knowing what has happened , if you could go back in time, would you have supported a reduction in oyster harvest when they were healthier?

[Matt]

Yes, I would have supported an oyster moratorium ten years ago, and twenty years ago. How far back do we need to go? I've been arguing for oysters for at least ten years. Its coming up on ten years ago I argued with Rob Holtz about the CCA eight point crab emergency plan, of which not a single point of that plan was ever instituted.

I appreciate how you're sticking to a reasonable position in debate Kevin, but your leaders are hanging you out to dry. They have no problem using tidalfish to gather membership money, but where's their leadership on the very simplest of issues? Why can't they lead a discussion about what is really important to the recreational community? In my opinion, they don't care what other people think. There's a few guys at the top of the regional CCA org calling all the shots, period. These are older guys with more dollars than sense, who think their abundance of time should allow them to call the shots. Those are the guys I have the most trouble with, because they claim to represent recs, but they don't. The exploit recs. They mislead recs. They are stuck in perpetual panhandling mode, and there's no accountibility for their repeated failures.

Regarding the menhaden issue, if they really cared about "how many" menhaden were being taken, they would want data on the number of fish or pounds harvested from pound nets. Currently the pound net fishery also enjoys a widespread lack of accountibility. The vast majority of "bait" fish go from net to pot without a stroke of pen. "How many" is not the issue. The issue increasing membership, and they think they will keep doing that forever by focusing on the the dreaded purse seiners. Unfortunately Omega is protected. CCA could make the most compelling scientific case in the history of fishery science and it wouldn't matter. Omega is too important to the northern neck economy. CCA's repeated failure to deal with the economic aspect of this issue is a sign that 1) the leaders don't understand the issue, or 2) they understand the issue, know they're fighting a losing battle, but keep exploiting the issue to sell more memberships. Oysters don't sell memberships, i.e. "Oysters are important but their aren't many folks who join CCA to fight for the oyster..." Which takes us back to stanleybros relevant statement about principles. The menhaden campaign in its current form is not principle-centered. If an issue is only important if it sell memberships, your organization's motives will remain highly transparent, and results will remain sorely lacking. In terms of accountibility, I sure would like to see some cost-benefit analysis on this campaign. HOW MANY manhours have been spent on this campaign in the last five years, and what has changed as a result of that effort?

Bottomline, recs are squandering limited resources on a campaign that looks like an automobile crash test starring in the movie groundhog day.

[stanleybros]

I too Kevin, would have / will support an oyster moratorium.

[Kenny Keen]

[shy]

[Sea Gristle]

Matt originally wrote:
Yes, I would have supported an oyster moratorium ten years ago, and twenty years ago. How far back do we need to go? I've been arguing for oysters for at least ten years. Its coming up on ten years ago I argued with Rob Holtz about the CCA eight point crab emergency plan, of which not a single point of that plan was ever instituted.

I appreciate how you're sticking to a reasonable position in debate Kevin, but your leaders are hanging you out to dry. They have no problem using tidalfish to gather membership money, but where's their leadership on the very simplest of issues?

CCAVA does not use Tidalfish to gather membership money (although I wish they would take out an ad) You are no doubt referring to the eventual “If it’s screwed up why don’t you join and fix it” invitation. I don’t think that counts as “using TF to gather membership money”. Frankly the leadership monitors the discussions but have largely quit posting because the anti-CCA posters and their positions are clearly staked out and are unchangeable.

Matt originally wrote:
Why can't they lead a discussion about what is really important to the recreational community?


They do – and the leadership *(VA anyway) continues to poll the membership and menhaden always comes out #1.
Matt originally wrote:
In my opinion, they don't care what other people think. There's a few guys at the top of the regional CCA org calling all the shots, period. These are older guys with more dollars than sense, who think their abundance of time should allow them to call the shots. Those are the guys I have the most trouble with, because they claim to represent recs, but they don't. The exploit recs. They mislead recs. They are stuck in perpetual panhandling mode, and there's no accountibility for their repeated failures.

There is some truth to what you say – I have come to a similar observation that for better or worse active CCA membership (VA anyway) is predominately 1) White; 2) Own their own business or are self-employed; 3) Retired. As with any organization the ones most passionate, give the most time and money tend to have the most influence (and unfortunately tend to be the most bombastic). But if CCA disbands, do you think some other, younger, more passionate, less abrasive group is going to fill the void? I'm getting off topic, sorry...
Matt originally wrote:
Regarding the menhaden issue, if they really cared about "how many" menhaden were being taken, they would want data on the number of fish or pounds harvested from pound nets. Currently the pound net fishery also enjoys a widespread lack of accountibility. The vast majority of "bait" fish go from net to pot without a stroke of pen. "How many" is not the issue. The issue increasing membership, and they think they will keep doing that forever by focusing on the the dreaded purse seiners.


CCAVA simply does not have the resources to go after every issue with equal zeal. It has to choose the battle that the membership wants the leadership to take on.

Matt originally wrote:
Unfortunately Omega is protected. CCA could make the most compelling scientific case in the history of fishery science and it wouldn't matter. Omega is too important to the northern neck economy. CCA's repeated failure to deal with the economic aspect of this issue is a sign that 1) the leaders don't understand the issue, or 2) they understand the issue, know they're fighting a losing battle, but keep exploiting the issue to sell more memberships.


The “Truth people” didn’t have to find an economic solution to Philip Morris’s economic problem- that is the job of the government that finally agrees with the popular sentiment of his/her constituents that something must be done.

Matt originally wrote:
Oysters don't sell memberships, i.e. "Oysters are important but their aren't many folks who join CCA to fight for the oyster..." Which takes us back to stanleybros relevant statement about principles. The menhaden campaign in its current form is not principle-centered.


It IS principle-centered. You just don’t agree with the principle.

Matt originally wrote:
If an issue is only important if it sell memberships, your organization's motives will remain highly transparent, and results will remain sorely lacking. In terms of accountibility, I sure would like to see some cost-benefit analysis on this campaign. HOW MANY manhours have been spent on this campaign in the last five years, and what has changed as a result of that effort?


Maybe CCAMD is growing membership through the menhaden issue, but menhaden are not bringing in droves of new VA members, so that’s a red herring [wink]

Matt originally wrote:
Bottomline, recs are squandering limited resources on a campaign that looks like an automobile crash test starring in the movie groundhog day.

Except no dues-paying CCAVA members are complaining. They’re probably the ones that made “Ground Hog Day” a box office hit.

[Sea Gristle]

Matt originally wrote:

Regarding the menhaden issue, if they really cared about "how many" menhaden were being taken, they would want data on the number of fish or pounds harvested from pound nets. Currently the pound net fishery also enjoys a widespread lack of accountibility. The vast majority of "bait" fish go from net to pot without a stroke of pen. "How many" is not the issue.



Saw pound nets mentioned in another post and it got me thinking. If a reduction was required in a fish stock is it not usually applied to the species, rather than the method? If ASFMC says menhaden catch needs to be capped or reduced, wouldn't the GA/VMRC have to apply a regulation automatically to ALL menhaden Fisheries? I don't know how these things work but I'm thinking everybody would have to reduce their catch, like rockfish, flounder, etc.

[Matt]

Kevin, I appreciate your passion for this stuff. YOU have passion. Maybe someday soon we can fish together. Until then, keep asking questions. Good luck.

[HammerII]

In my opinion, they don't care what other people think. There's a few guys at the top of the regional CCA org calling all the shots, period.
These are older guys with more dollars than sense, who think their abundance of time should allow them to call the shots.
Those are the guys I have the most trouble with, because they claim to represent recs, but they don't. The exploit recs. They mislead recs.
They are stuck in perpetual panhandling mode, and there's no accountibility for their repeated failures.



Interesting, I know I’m not a spring chicken any more, but I really don’t think I’m an older retired guy at all. As far as an abundance of time, I work more hours as a self employed person then most other folks I know. I do make the time to drive the hour to Annapolis every week after work to work on something involving CCA. Most of the time my wife and I pass at the front door. I do this after putting in double hour days, not for fame or fortune but that somebody has to take a stand. Of course I can spend hours crying about what’s going on, or I can choose to stand and make a difference.

Yes I do know some folks in CCA who have made great choices in their money planning, but I’m not one of them. Matt my guess is that you easily out earn me at the end of the year. I’m also willing to bet I spent more on coffee going to and from meetings then you spent in supporting any group interested in saving the bay.

I spent the last year traveling to each and every banquet in the state, just to spend face time with members talking about issues. Last year CCA Md mailed out a questionnaire asking just what the members wanted. Driven from the top you say, how about driven from the ground up. In your back yard the Local chapter is taking on all comers with yellow perch and the “mini pound nets” on the rivers. This isn’t part of any grant it’s just a group of folks who have decided to make a stand. The part that is truly amazing is the different backgrounds of the folks who come together for a common cause. From the local chapter we now have two different systems that will be added to catch and release for yellow perch this fall in Southern Maryland.

For once you and I agree. CCA doesn’t represent rec’s. Really read with a open mind what CCA is all about. If you want a rec. fishing group join MSSA or RFA. I belong to both( I also belong to Trout Unlimted, Bass Masters and A few more) but spend my time and cash with CCA. Why? It’s the one group that is really driven from the ground up. A simple test is ask your self why in the world CCA Md is involved with yellow perch in Southern Maryland? Really think about it. It sure isn’t a sexy fish, in most places its a forage fish.

The bottom line appears is that you’ve appointed yourself the “CCA Watch Dog”. Great if this floats your boat have a ball with it. Personally, ( Personally I mean by me just me and please don’t take this as a attack I really don’t mean it to be) I just gota know why you take glee in any set back CCA faces? While constructive criticism is always welcome you jump up down proclaiming doom and gloom. Yet CCA Md continues to grow every year, and we gain the resources to take on more and more issues. Of course just reading what’s being said here you would think CCA has no impact at all and hasn’t addressed anything. In your attempts at criticism you fail to point out any of the positives that CCA does. This leaves me wondering just how balanced you are about any of this. Or did CCA in some pass life just really piss in your corn flakes one morning?

If you’re just lost and confused, may I recommend a little physical labor? Drop me a line we really need a hand Saturday morning hauling little yellow perch to Allen’s Fresh. No debates, just a hands on approach to helping solve a fisheries

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

A thousand plagues on you Matt, for daring to voice your opinion on how a Maryland Chartered Non Profit Organization conducts it’s business or policy.

In the future please understand that most of what they do, is for the benefit of the chosen few and not the many.

[Double Haul]

I don't care how many menhadden Omega catches, as long as it isn't in the Ches Bay. That's where the food chain appears to be disrupted. Menhadden problems, oyster problems, crab problems and sav problems. Someone needs to wake up.

[Sea Gristle]

Hammer II - My observation of the ACTIVE make-up of CCAVA was not meant as a criticism of those who freely give their time and resources for something they believe in. I guess what I was trying to say (badly) is that many of involved, active members have some flexibility in their lives that allow them to devote time to CCAVA (clearly a frustration for me) and that influences the make-up of the group more than some secret desire to drive anybody that fishes with a net for a living out of the bay.

Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of the perch specifically and CCA in general and I apologize for what my daughter calls "globalizing" about the CCA membership.

[Matt]

Bill, after a hiatus from this board, I'm wading in to this discussion again, as a recreational fisherman, to state my opinion about chesapeake bay conservation issues. Your words are designed to inhibit me from free speech. Thats like a form of censorship. In spite of that, I'm gonna try to give you a detailed opjective response.

All I can say in my defense is that I take more time than most to understand these issues and stay current on the policies and people involved in fishery management. When you read my posts, don't take it personally. I didn't make a claim about you personally.

Hope you can try to do the same.

I consider there to be a sore lack of leadership within the recreational community. I'm not talking about CCA southern Md, I'm talking every level from local to national. There's so many groups representing recs going in so many different directions, its surprising when we accomplish anything. Strength in numbers is an unattainable goal until recs can speak with one voice. Currently we do not. The different chapters of CCA within a single state don't even speak with one voice.

This so-called war on industrial menhaden fishing is misdirected. The first thing that has to happen is for recs to unite, and I don't see anybody talking about that. We need to unite behind a goal, and thats where it starts. For example, if you told me you were spending your entire warchest on menhaden purse seining next year, I would say fine, tell me what you hope to accomplish. Is it a good use of my money to pay for a membership? If you told me we were branching out into every issues, with no specific goals, no further explanation required. Thats a bad plan.

Right now recs around the chesapeake have too many competing priorities. Its not anybody's fault, but until we recognize the lack of consensus, we have a problem.

"The bottom line appears is that you’ve appointed yourself the “CCA Watch Dog”

If the bottomline is about me, you've lost your focus. I have not appointed myself as anything. I'm just one guy with a computer and internet service. the watch dog thing is ad hominem mischaracterization. I really don't follow CCA at all. I view CCA as politically impotent.

I am really talking about today's menhaden crusade, because it concerns me that after all the stuff we've heard over and over about the evil empire in reedville, "now" is the time...? Now is not the time. Now is the time for recs to decide if we're serious about localized depletion. Is there really an issue, and is that issue any worse than say, dredging for crabs, or transplanting non-native oysters?

"I just gota know why you take glee in any set back CCA faces? "

More mischaracterization. You make it sound like I'm happy recs are failing to influence policy. If our influence were even close to what it could be, I would shut up and really take some glee. Right now I take none at all. I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated by a lack of leadership, and a lack of focus and a willingness by recreational leadership to fail. Hey, I understand failing once. But twice, or continuously??? Its my opinion, Bill, we're better off not repeating our mistakes. Okay, this menhaden thing is tougher nut to crack then we thought. Turns out that fishing striped bass below the target or threshold is gonna be a tougher nut too. What's the point in slamming into the same walls from the same direction over and over.

The menhaden issue is the northern neck economy. If somebody in recreational leadership said, "Matt, we don't care about those people's income," I would say you better, because that's what really matters to legislators. But you guys won't even address the issue, like its not your problem. Again I'll say you better make it your problem, because very few legislators are willingly to reduce jobs without a clearly articulated economic alternative. Asking Va's state legislature to kill jobs in an economically undiverse area is like asking them to approve a significant welfare entitlement. Va simply will not brac omega out of reedville without a very persuasive economic argument.

Bill, we might not agree on what is constructive criticism, but just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't make what I say to be "doom and gloom." I don't think recs are on the right path. There's no doom and gloom about it. Eventually we will get on the right path. Before we can, something has to change. I'm not sure what has to change, but I'm pretty sure its not going to happen this generation. One thing I think is that recs need entrenched stovepipe thinking to retire. I'm not sure why a few of those guys are happy to claim no significant accomplishments in their careers, but that the kind of capital "L" thinking that needs to go. If you want an example of what we need around here, I'll send you to Tom Fote in New Jersey. I don't agree with all of Tom's policies and opinions, but he's a political bulldog. He gets stuff done.

I don't even know how Tom finds the time. I really don't know. I firmly believe Time is recs most sorely lacking resource. People can send money, but until they devote their time, we have to be extremely selective about the issues and how we take'em on.

"CCA Md continues to grow every year, and we gain the resources to take on more and more issues."

I don't understand why you want to take on more issues until you've really made a difference on one issue. Thats the kind of lack of focus that's killing recs. We don't have the time to spend attending to every issue. Pick one, decide what you're gonna do and how you're gonna do it, then do it. Then, when you want to rebut criticism about CCA, you can simply show how CCA's effort made a difference.

When I talk about CCA and purse seining, I am generally speaking of the Va organization, because its a Va fishery. All I have to do is go across the river and look at crab pots Va piles in their creeks to know Va has some bigger conservation issues than reedville. All I have to do is look at who is getting busted for illegal targeting of striped bass to know Va has some problems. With respect to Md and the Md organization, this kind of lack of focus is gonna get you the same place it got Va. For example, when I read the profile of certain tidalfish participants whoe stated occupation is "commercial fishing" but they're logged in with a Md DNR email address, I know we're going down the same path as Va. Md isn't going in the right direction. Oysters, striped bass, crabs, menhaden...we don't have one fishery that's in better condition than five years ago.

"Of course just reading what’s being said here you would think CCA has no impact at all and hasn’t addressed anything."

I'm still not sure what CCA Md has done for me. You guys are doing a cool thing with yellow perch, but thats not really something I consider important. Why do we pay for the state to have restocking programs, and then have to do it ourselves? Why not use the resources we've already paid for? It all about the Time. I can't justify any kind of personal investment of my time to grow yellow perch. I can't even justify the Time to grow a few oysters twenty yards from my doorstep. You guys grow those perch and are the loudest complainers of the nets downstream that harvest'em. Allen's fresh got wiped out by something, and I'm not going to fight those forces until I understand what did it. Until I fished with Dennis, I couldn't get a single CCA guy to even admit Allen's Fresh got wiped out. How do I feel good about the yellow perch campaign when I know you were harvesting eggs from there when it got wiped out, but nobody in your group will clearly articulate that the yellow perch fishery is gone. Maybe when you prove to me that your private restocking effort can work, then maybe we can talk about a donation of my time to move around eggs.

"If you’re just lost and confused, may I recommend a little physical labor? Drop me a line we really need a hand Saturday morning hauling little yellow perch to Allen’s Fresh."

If the rain stops, I'm going back to my fibercement siding job.

[Ladyfish]

"Here's an idea to make it fair for everybody: lets take an area and make sanctuary from all forms of fishing." We kinda did that already...it was called a "moratorium".

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

Ladyfish originally wrote:
"Here's an idea to make it fair for everybody: lets take an area and make sanctuary from all forms of fishing." We kinda did that already...it was called a "moratorium".


We already have a sanctuary in the bay; It’s called the Dead Zone. Automatically no fishing within the zone, because there are no fish.

[stanleybros]

Mike, can you give me the lat/long of "a sanctuary in the bay; It’s called the Dead Zone. Automatically no fishing within the zone, because there are no fish. ?"

Thanks

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

SB

Can't. It moves with the tides up here. If you want more info ask Norm.
I'm sure he has the low dissolved oyxgen numbers at his finger tips.

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

SB
Here is a good website to avail yourself of some info concerning dissolved oyxgen and what it is doing to the upper bay at times. Dead Zones are the result of low oyxgen levels in areas of the bay.

http://mddnr.chesapeakebay.net/newmontech/contmon/current_results.cfm

Up here the fishing clubs blame the lack of fish on the commercial user group, while in reality the main reason is theirselves. They don't want to admit that the rec fishermen user group has ballooned to the point in population, that it is having a detrimental effect on the fish populations. It easier to blame the other user groups.

[Matt]

One of my concerns about recreational fishing's leadership is demonstrated by Bill's message. Half of his message was about him, personally, and the other half was about me, personally. Specific fishery issues were not addressed. Bill is more polite than others before him, but the approach is more of the same. Sidestep the issues, focus on personal stuff, then bow out. For a specific example, look at the emphasis on how much money I spent "saving the bay." For what its worth, there aren't any groups saving the bay. CBF is close, but their apolitical approach to fisheries is part of the reason why the bay is in such terrible shape. Look at CBF's scorecard on oysers...not a word about ending harvest. Also for what its worth, I spend more of my annual income protecting the bay than most, by an order of magnitude, and I'll bet I can show that I spent more of my time and money on things that save the bay than Bill.

Throwing money at "groups" is easy. Giving time is harder, and my hat is off to Bill for driving all over the state drinking coffee. But the really hard thing is to understand the issues, and I haven't read very many words here to make me believe CCA leaders understand the issues. Its really the contrary. For example, commercial purse seining is more than a fishery issue. Its an economic issue. The economics of this situation trump fishery aspects everytime. Public policy dictates govt place more emphasis on sustaining fishing communities than on sustaining the fish or recreational fisheries. Federal law requires fishery managers to consider the impact of their decisions on fishing communities. Failure of rec fishing leaders to address the statutory aspects in their latest campaign is the main reason why the largest group of fishermen still have the smallest voice in the outcome of important fishery management decisions.

As long as less knowledgable people send money to recreational fishery conservation organizations like CCA, there really is no incentive for rec leaders to become more educated on the issues, or more adept at dealing with the right issues the right way. The truth is, regional groups like CCA have established a culture where failure is completely acceptable, and where overexploitation is standard. Some rec leaders might criticize a group like MWA and suggest they are the enemy. The truth is, MWA members have more at stake economically. Like it or not, commercial fishermen are holding those trump cards, because its all about the economics. Our fishing communities must be protected. Govt will not regulate people out of work; rec leaders either do not understand this facet of fishery management or they don't care. Either way, it goes a long, long way toward explaining rec's lack of success.

Its troubling to read almost constant mixed messages from rec leadership. They stand for issues that would put comms out of business, but when they are pressed to be clear on their position, they almost always say they want to share the fishery. The reedville thing is a perfect example. The 'menhaden matters' crusaders never told you they wanted to put omega out of business. The effect of making reedville purse seiners run every trip into the ocean is clear enough though. Omega would have to relocate, which would result in the same economic impact on Va's northern neck. The problem here is that rec leaders lack the courage to come right out and tell people they want to put a man out of work and they don't care who pays for it, because it would make them look uncaring and politically inept. Unfortunately, by asking for public policy that would put a man out of work anyway, they look uncaring, politically inept, and dishonest as well.

[Sea Gristle]

Round and round we go- Matt, you always try to make the CCA Menhaden issue into an anti-purse seine fishing vendetta. It doesn't matter HOW they harvest them- vacuum cleaner, dynamite, pound net, whatever- the net (no pun intened) result is fewer forage filter feeders in the bay. That is what CCA wants.

As far as the missing the economic point CCA doesn't miss it, they can't do anything about that. I can see it now: "CCA's new initative to get Govermental subsidies to train Northern Neck commercial menhaden fishing population to cast concrete reef balls to ease pressure on dwindling fish stocks." IF reducing the harvest of menhaqden DOES result in loss of jobs, THEN there is a problem that can be addressed. The only ones claiming loss of jobs is Omega. I'd say it too if I wanted to scare politians into doing nothing.

[Capt Frank]

Here's a great site sent to me by John Page Williams. Just plug in a date and you can find the dead zone. The site has interpolated data and you can compare different years or months.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status/wquality/interpolator/do/gallery.htm

[Matt]

Kevin wrote:
Round and round we go- Matt, you always try to make the CCA Menhaden issue into an anti-purse seine fishing vendetta.



If it weren't aall about purse seining CCA would ask for proper reporting for pound nets.

Kevin wrote:

As far as the missing the economic point CCA doesn't miss it, they can't do anything about that.



Thats the kind of statement that helps prove my point about the persistent lack of political savvy. If your fishing club doesn't have any economic alternatives, I recommend the coastal conservation fishing club should not continue this campaign.

Kevin wrote:
IF reducing the harvest of menhaqden DOES result in loss of jobs, THEN there is a problem that can be addressed.



Addressed how? Thats the question your fishing club needs to address now.

Kevin wrote:

The only ones claiming loss of jobs is Omega. I'd say it too if I wanted to scare politians into doing nothing.



You make it sound like Omega doesn't have a case. They will win this dispute everytime with their so-called scare tactics.

[Barefoot]

How many full-time year-round jobs does Omega have in Reedville?

[Matt]

"Built at a cost of $22.5 million, the refinery is the largest business investment ever in Northumberland County, which depends heavily on seasonal fishing for jobs. Omega Protein is the region’s largest company with nearly 250 full-time employees and a $10 million payroll."

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/magazine/yr2004/nov04/mnfomega.shtml

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

No rural Virginia politician will vote to eliminate jobs. It would be a death sentence for his political career. The urban politicians need the votes of their rural counter parts to get bills passed, so they also will vote against eliminating jobs.

Omega is not going to be banned from the bay nor will the catch be reduced to any extent. If ASMFC steps in and tries to reduce the catch, the almost certain lawsuits will delay any action for years.

[Purdue1]

Mike,

I thought they wouldn't vote to get rid of jobs because they are all getting paid off by Omega? At least that is what I have read on this board multiple times. I think your explanation might have alot more credibility then those other posts I have read and those attacking Omega would be well advised to understand the dynamics of the battle they are trying to wage. All the trash talking and conspiracy theory banter really needs to go.

[Sea Gristle]

Matt, what would happen to the jobs if Omega spent a little more money on fuel and caught 70% of their fish outside of Virignia's inshore waters and rather than the current 30%?

They just spent millions on the plant in Reedville that has to be paid for no matter where the fish are caught and landed.

[stanleybros]

Sea, you and I agree to disgree (like gentleman) most always but this time, I have to agree with your theory you just posed Matt.

BTW, who will win the the budget war in Richmond?

[Matt]

Kevin wrote:
Matt, what would happen to the jobs if Omega spent a little more money on fuel and caught 70% of their fish outside of Virignia's inshore waters and rather than the current 30%?

They just spent millions on the plant in Reedville that has to be paid for no matter where the fish are caught and landed.


Kevin, you're asking me questions you should be asking your leadership. In my opinion, if Omega was required to run all or most of their trips to the ocean, they would have to move out of reedville, period. Thats the bottomline, and thats why localized depletion is a dead issue out of the gates. The localized depletion of jobs is a bigger issue. The northern neck needs those jobs.

NOAA provided a $20 million loan to Omega for the recent upgrade. That would be a fishery development program loan, backed by taxpayers.

[Sea Gristle]

I don't see it. Who's going to welcome a stinky fish rendering plant with open arms in a waterfront community? Not many I'm thinking. All Omega has to do is upgrade their technology to take longer trips (maybe NOAA will help). Maybe they need factory ships that stay out for months. The japanese do it.

I think it might be more true that it is becoming a increasingly less profitable business and the Reedville local governement ought to be looking for a way to bring jobs to the area rather than CCA.

[Matt]

Kevin, you're desensitized to Omega's bottomline. More and farther trips equals less income for the northern neck. There is no "upgrade" that makes mandatory trips from reedville to the ocean more profitable. We might be able to talk about ways to mitigate their loss, but if the fishing club is seriously encouraging "factory ships that stay out for months" I would ask the fishing club to produce science to show that solution to be a better alternative to what we have now. Menhaden spawn at sea. If we develop a more capable industrial fishing fleet for the ocean, the menhaden might not come back.

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

My question to the CCA Va official.

Since the ASMFC is conducting public hearings for comment on an addendum for Menhaden management, When will your group notify the recreational fishermen of the up coming hearings. Your state hearing is scheduled for late July, but perhaps now is the time to start reminding people of the hearing so they can plan to attend.

Maryland’s hearing is scheduled for June 27th and as of this morning, I haven’t seen any notifications on Any Tidal Fish Boards, by the CCA hierarchy, of the meeting. Also no notice has been sent to members from the state organization. Perhaps they intend to wait until the last minute to notify so the leadership can voice its own agenda.

[Sea Gristle]

ASMFC and Omega's own scientist say the stocks in the oceans are healthy. The additional money expended by increased fuel should be more than offset by increased catches. It's a friggin' fish-oil goldmine out there, they just have to go get it.

Unless the real reason is the market demand for their product isn't all that robust, and Omega's falling stock price is not a result of reduced catches but a soft fish meal and oil market. Which will mean a loss of jobs, and why the NN should be diversifying its industrial base, not CCA, and not fighting tooth and nail on protecting over-exploitive localized menhaden fishing.

Capt. Mike, you should be getting notification soon from your local CCA chapter at your next meeting.[grin]

[Purdue1]

Market demand is robust. A soft market is not the case. Prices for fishmeal have been steadily on the increase and are trading over $600 MT, with a historical average running $300-$500 MT.

[Sea Gristle]

And oil prices are dropping. Sounds like the perfect time to give the Bay a break and go get them in the ocean. More fish at the dock to be processed, they could probably hire even more Northern Neck residents. Everybody wins!

[Purdue1]

If everybody wins, then they would have done that already. Personally I concur with you that they could probably make the run to the ocean (albeit at an expense). However, lets not add more misinformation to another menhaden post. Only Omega can truly answer that question. No one here has the experience or knowledge to say one way or the other. I will say it has been my experience that an industry might overdramatize the affect of such a move. Without substantial evidence that Omega is actually hurting the stocks, it is going to be hard to make any changes.

By the way..... here is a good study if you want to learn a bit more about fishmeal and the global market for such....

http://www.nlh.no/ios/Seminar/2004/s-02-06.pdf#search='Fishmeal%20Price'

[Sea Gristle]

No misinformation being shared, only opinions. And you are correct, nothing will change the status quo unless it can be proved there is a problem. But Omega doesn't have the "truth" either, their "information" is as subjective and anecdotal as the opposition. They have a vested interest in the status quo to protect their shareholders, not Northern Neck jobs as some people seem to believe.

Thanks for the link.

[Purdue1]

Kevin, actually, I hope you didn't take offense, I wasn't referring to you in regards to misinformation. However, when a menhaden post comes up all kinds of bs starts to flow. Look at the one on the NNeck board as the most recent example. Most people don't even take the time learn a bit about what is going on they just keep spewing crap out. Again, not reffering to you.

Regarding Omega, you will notice that they, most of the time quote scientist or experts. Especially the ASMFC officials. So much of what people say is Omega, is actually Omega quoting those percieved as non biased, and perhaps putting a spin on it. (see the attached, rather you agree with it or not, it proves my point). Also, I agree with you totally about the shareholder thing. The saddest thing happening to this country right now is the "report to the shareholder" mentallity. It makes the actual employees just a number on an accountants spreadsheet.

By the way, in what I have seen, Omega does have quite a bit of information that they use to their advantage. More then I have seen from the guys that want to shut them down. Which might be why this argument always ends up with conspiracy theories about how Bush is their owner, or they are paying off politicians. Crap, I even saw a post where somebody blamed them for the croaker kills last year. It actually gets quite comical at times.

Attachment.....





The Facts

Menhaden Matter Report: A Critical Analysis

On October 25, 2004, a newly-formed group called Menhaden Matter released a report entitled 'Menhaden Matter - Proactive Conservation Measures Are Needed to Protect the Ecological Role of Atlantic Menhaden and the Chesapeake Bay'. While attempting to portray itself as a neutral, conservation-oriented effort, the Menhaden Matter group appears dominated by advocates of the sport fishing industry, who have tried, in vain, for years to eliminate the commercial menhaden fishery from the Bay.

These fanatical big game angler organizations appear willing to go to any lengths of deception and defamation in their attempts to expand the sportfishing industry at the expense of the centuries-old, sustainable harvest of menhaden. In contrast, we believe that the legitimate, government-produced, scientific record speaks for itself, and clearly indicates that the Menhaden Matter report is misleading and factually incorrect.

The multitude of federal, state, and university fishery scientists and regulators responsible for ensuring the continued health of the menhaden resource indicate that menhaden stocks are healthy, not overfished and require no additional regulations of fishing harvests.

Nonetheless, the following is a critical analysis and correction of some of the more egregious statements contained in the Menhaden Matter report.

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"The Menhaden Matter effort wants to be clear. It is not looking to shut down the industrial menhaden industry. To the contrary, it believes that proactive management of menhaden now will improve the future health of the industry and the Chesapeake Bay."

Reality:

The Menhaden Matter group is comprised of four organizations: the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), the National Coalition for Marine Conservation (NCMC), Environmental Defense (ED), and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). Two of these groups -- CCA and NCMC -- appear to be thinly-veiled lobbyist groups for the sportfishing industry. Their record of anti-commercial fishing efforts is evident. It would appear that the remaining two groups -- ED and CBF -- have unfortunately adopted an anti-science, and anti-commercial fishing stance, as well.

The record of past anti-fishing efforts by these Menhaden Matter advocates clearly demonstrates that they have repeatedly campaigned -- unsuccessfully -- to eliminate the menhaden fishery in the Chesapeake Bay over the years.

According to the Coastal Conservation Association:

"A five-year moratorium on the harvest of menhaden for fishmeal and oil would have an immediate and quantifiable impact on water quality."

- Testimony of Sherman Bayard on behalf of the Coastal Conservation Association before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Committee on Resources United States House of Representatives.

"Coastal Conservation Association Virginia (CCA VA) applauds the National Coalition for Marine Conservation (NCMC) petition requesting the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) prohibit all purse seine fishing for Atlantic menhaden within the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries."

- Coastal Conservation Association Virginia, Press Release, September 2003.


According to the National Coalition for Marine Conservation:

"The National Coalition for Marine Conservation is reaching out to anglers from Maine to North Carolina with a petition to prohibit industrial-scale fishing for Atlantic menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay."

- National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Press Release, June 2003

"We are calling on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to curtail industrial-scale fishing for Atlantic menhaden within the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries."

- Ken Hindman, President of the National Coalition of Marine Conservation in a petition to the ASMFC Menhaden Management Board.


According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation:

"We can no longer afford the luxury of allowing the industrial-scale fishery to proceed."

- Bill Goldsborough, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Associated Press, October, 2004.
Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"Despite the critical role that menhaden play in the ocean food web, currently no conservation measures - including fishing limits - are in place to ensure that menhaden remain at healthy levels within the Chesapeake Bay, an ecosystem critical to the survival of fish and wildlife all along the Atlantic Coast."

Reality:

This statement is patently false. First, no large scale commercial menhaden fishing occurs in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay, voiding the necessity for conservation measures. Second, in Virginia waters, the menhaden fishery is heavily regulated, and has been for decades. Specifically, Virginia Code establishes regulations that:

Limit the length of fishing seasons;
Prohibit fishing in vast portions of fishable areas of the Bay and its tributaries;
Establish a minimum net mesh requirement, intended to prevent the harvesting of juvenile fish; and
Establish licensing and permitting requirements.
Collectively, these state management measures ensure that menhaden are harvested in a sustainable manner. In the event that overfishing were to occur in the future, this event would trigger the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to enact additional fishing regulations to prevent its occurrence.

Furthermore, menhaden fishermen have adopted a number of voluntary measures to assist in the conservation of these fish and reduce the potential for user group conflicts on Bay waters. For example, fishermen do not harvest menhaden during weekends, when sport anglers and charter boat captains are most active. This voluntary measure, alone, accounts for a nearly 30% reduction in fishing effort by the menhaden fleet -- a fleet only comprised of a total of 10 vessels.

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"The population of young menhaden has been at an all-time low for more than a decade."

Reality:

This statement is patently false. While the population of age-0 and age-1 fish since 1995 has been below the historical average, the number of menhaden has never even reached the lowest number of menhaden recorded (in 1967) much less been at 'an all-time low' for more than a decade.

Source: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Report No. 04-01, February, 2004

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"The survival rate of striped bass in the bay has been declining due to natural causes."

Reality:

We agree that striped bass survival may be declining due to natural causes, which raises the question as to why the Menhaden Matter group is attempting to put menhaden fishermen out of business as a scapegoat.

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"Today, the only East Coast states that permit industrialized menhaden harvesting are Virginia and North Carolina."

Reality:

This statement is false. Seven East Coast states permit industrialized menhaden harvesting: Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and North Carolina.

Source: Atlantic Menhaden Technical Committee Report, September 23, 2004

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"Recruitment failure - not enough young fish surviving to enter the population - has existed for over a decade."

Reality:

This statement is false. Scientists acknowledge that the amount of recruitment (young fish) has been below average in recent year. However, if recruitment 'failure' were actually occurring in the menhaden population for over a decade, it is highly likely that the menhaden would now be functionally extinct (menhaden are a short-lived specie and rarely reach the age of seven).

Furthermore, the Menhaden Matter group seems to suggest that menhaden fishing is somehow responsible for the weak recruitment during recent years. The best scientific evidence available does not support this contention.

First, in reality, menhaden fishermen do not target young, juvenile fish (less than 2 years in age) in the Bay. Second, the number of adult, breeding-sized menhaden in the wild is very healthy, and is more than adequate to produce large quantities of recruits into the population.

So, if fishermen aren't targeting these juvenile fish, and the breeding population of menhaden is very healthy, then why has recruitment been below average in recent years?

Studies by Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission scientists suggest that predation by striped bass, bluefish and weakfish may be the problem. Moreover, consumption of juvenile (less than 2 years of age) menhaden by striped bass is enormous. Specifically, when compared to the number of menhaden harvested by the reduction industry, these studies indicate that striped bass consume an 'order of magnitude' more menhaden than harvested by fishermen!

From a regulatory perspective, if striped bass are the primary source of mortality of juvenile menhaden, it becomes apparent that any potential additional harvest restrictions on menhaden fishing are likely to have significantly less impact, if any, on the condition of the menhaden stock, in comparison to potential changes in the size and composition of the striped bass stock.

Of interest, scientific reports suggest that striped bass populations may have exceeded their natural carrying capacity within the Chesapeake Bay as early as the late 1990s. Indeed, the striped bass stock, which the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission determined as 'fully recovered' in 1995, has seemingly grown to a disproportionate, and potentially unsustainable, size within the Bay.

Sources: Uphoff, J.H., "Predator-Prey Analysis of Striped Bass and Atlantic Menhaden in Upper Chesapeake Bay"; Fisheries Management and Ecology, vol. 10, pp. 313-322, 2003; and Cieri, Matt, "Progress of Menhaden Multispecies Model: A Report of the Menhaden Multispecies Subcommittee to Atlantic Menhaden Management Board", 2002.

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"Fishing mortality may be underestimated and the stock declining at a faster rate than the stock assessment indicates, because the relationship of catchability to abundance is not significant in a purse-seine fishery for a pelagic schooling fish like menhaden."

Reality:

This assertion is based on a theory that was previously reviewed by the Atlantic Menhaden Technical Committee for scientific merit and subsequently rejected in 2003. Hence, the Menhaden Matter assertion is false.

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"Abundance indices are lowest for Chesapeake Bay, particularly for juvenile fish, suggesting the possibility of localized depletion."

Reality:

As concluded by scientists at a recent Menhaden Workshop, the menhaden fishery management plan would have to contain a scientific reference point, which scientists are currently unable to formulate, to determine the possibility of 'localized depletion'. Moreover, these scientists did not recommend the necessity of any interim regulations in light of this fact.

Source: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Atlantic Menhaden Workshop Report (Draft), October, 2004.

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"Not surprisingly, fewer new fish joining the population, combined with a fishery that has no limits on the amount of menhaden it can catch, means overall abundance declines."

Reality:

This assertion is clearly speculative. A lack of concrete, allowable harvests does not equate to- or ensure- a decline in menhaden abundance - regardless of variations in recruitment. Furthermore, of course, regulators can alter any fishery management plans as deemed necessary to ensure the continued conservation of menhaden.

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"Fishery data from 2003, for example, indicate 90 percent of the menhaden were immature fish, caught before their third birthday. That means that nine out of ten fish taken by the fishery never live to reproduce and replenish the population."

Reality:

This statement is patently false. According to Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission scientists, most Atlantic menhaden reach sexual maturity before reaching age three (age-2 fish). Not coincidentally, the majority (65%+) of commercial harvests are age-2 fish. Therefore, based on the authors' assertion that 90% of menhaden harvested were immature fish, they're asserting than zero age-2 fish reach sexual maturity - directly contradicting Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission scientists.

Source: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Report No. 04-01, February, 2004

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"However, the return of these birds could be threatened by a reduction in available prey...experts speculate that the sharp drop in the population of small menhaden is affecting fish-eating birds."

Reality:

The Menhaden Matter report references Dr. Paul Spitzer's works on this potential relationship. However, Dr. Spitzer's circulated a report at a recent Menhaden Workshop that states, "All five of these [bird]species are generally stable in number or increasing in the Atlantic Coast region. Their predation is very unlikely to have a significant effect on menhaden population size."

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"Simply put, striped bass and a number of other predators are competing with the industrial-scale menhaden fishery food, and they are losing the fight."

Reality:

This assertion is patently false. While it is true that large numbers of menhaden are currently harvested from the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic coastal waters, the vast majority of menhaden swimming in our marine waters are not harvested by commercial fishermen. Specifically, marine scientists estimate that for every 1 menhaden harvested by commercial fishermen annually, 510 fish are left in the water! Click here for a graphic illustration depicting this harvest compared to the overall menhaden population.

Source: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Report No. 04-01, February, 2004

Menhaden Matter Assertion:

"The ASMFC has begun a process to determine whether interim management measures should be taken to prevent what could be the ecologically harmful depletion of menhaden, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay."

Reality:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission recently held a Menhaden Workshop to examine the ecological situation in the Bay as it relates to menhaden, and to directly address the concerns of sport anglers and other concerned stakeholders. One of the enumerate goals of this workshop was to develop recommendations for revised or new directions to the Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan to the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board. As evidenced by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission workshop report, scientists recommend no interim management measures be taken by fishery regulators at this time.

Source: Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Atlantic Menhaden Workshop Report (Draft), October, 2004.