Will the VAGA buck the ASFMC?

[Sea Gristle]

Is the Virginia Legislature ready to risk a complete shut down of the menhaden fishery in order to support Omega's premise that ASMFC was wrong in putting a cap in place?

A closure by the Secretary of Commerce would most probably mean stopping all harvest of menhaden, this includes bait for crab pots, chum, and even peanut bunker used for flounder bait.

Is the legislature ready to risk forcing the crabbers, with $50,000,000 in landings and probably $250,000,000 in economic impact, to buy their bait from out of state harvesters? Further, if it is like what happened with horseshoe crabs, there is a possibility that they may not even be allowed buy from out of state.

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

Why would the VGA have a problem with the cap?
A 5-year average was more then Omega could hope for.
Maybe the Omega opposition could push for a fuel subsidy also. That would show them. [sad]

[Sea Gristle]

They don't like caps on political contributions[grin]

[junebug007]

Why would the VAGA support a suggested action by the ASMFC which attempts to instruct the Commonwealth on how to allocate its own fishery resources between Virginia fishermen? The Commission is in violation of its own formal standards.

Moreover, as no conservation rationale exists to support the ASMFC suggestion, the issue digresses into a state's rights issue. Ultimately, Virginia is a sovereign state and can manage its in-state natural resources as it choses.

By next Spring, the ASMFC will likely emerge with no quota, no industry assisted research, and a black eye.

[Digger]

junebug007 and to do that they will have a leasta one year clouser and I believe a loss of certian Federal funds. It would be ugly to say the least.

[LinMar]

junebug007 originally wrote:
Why would the VAGA support a suggested action by the ASMFC which attempts to instruct the Commonwealth on how to allocate its own fishery resources between Virginia fishermen?

I believe this happens every year with rec/comm limits on Rock, Flounder etc.

[Sea Gristle]

I believe the reason why The US government can tell the VAGA what to do is because the fish are technically ATLANTIC Menhaden and therefore are a migratory species that pay no attention to jurisdictional boundaries. Just like flounder Rock etc.

[junebug007]

LOL! Funny, funny stuff. Keep it coming! [grin]

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

junebug007 originally wrote:
LOL! Funny, funny stuff. Keep it coming! [grin]


The VAGA doesn't stand a chance in this one. Don't believe me, do some research. New York and New Jersey recently tried to flex their independence and all it got them was a cry of Uncle.
VAGA votes to not go along with the ASMFC. In steps the Secretary of Commerce. All he will do is mandate a species is not to be caught in VA and back it up with enforcement from the Coast Guard. VAGA will cry uncle on this one.

Unfortunately five years is too long to wait. The problem should be corrected by next spring.

[junebug007]

The VAGA doesn't stand a chance in this one. Don't believe me, do some research. New York and New Jersey recently tried to flex their independence and all it got them was a cry of Uncle.
VAGA votes to not go along with the ASMFC. In steps the Secretary of Commerce. All he will do is mandate a species is not to be caught in VA and back it up with enforcement from the Coast Guard. VAGA will cry uncle on this one.

Wrong. Completely different circumstances. Most importantly, overfishing is not occurring within the menhaden fishery. Addendum II is an attempt to address so-called localized depletion, not to address overfishing. The ASMFC does not know if LD is occurring, nor can the ASMFC even comprehensively define what LD is!

If you think the Secy of Commerce is going to close Virginia's commercial and recreational menhaden fisheries, based on pure, unbased speculation to address an undefined condition which is, in fact, more likely a result (if it is occurring) of the overabundance of striped bass, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

By the way, in case you weren't keeping tabs at the last ASMFC Menhaden Board meeting, both the US Dept. of Commerce (NMFS) and the US Dept. of the Interior (US Fish and Wildlife Service) both publicly supported Omega's proposal to voluntarily cap Bay harvests at 131,000 mt. What is the current ASMFC-proposed bay harvest quota?[grin]

[Sam Whitefoot]

Junebug,

You should review the action from a few years ago where the Secretary found VA out of compliance on horseshoe crabs. There was no hard science and ASMFC put a cap on the fishery on a state by state basis. VA balked and was shut down until they came into compliance. Conch fishermen were not even allowed to have horseshoe crabs on their boats during the time that the state was shut down.

It will be interesting to see if the general assembly sides with Omega and their 250 employees at the risk of the of the lively hood of the holders of the 1620 commercial blue crab pot licenses, the supporting industry of the picking houses, bait dealers, seafood shops and restaurants.

Sam

[junebug007]

Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
Junebug,

You should review the action from a few years ago where the Secretary found VA out of compliance on horseshoe crabs. There was no hard science and ASMFC put a cap on the fishery on a state by state basis. VA balked and was shut down until they came into compliance. Conch fishermen were not even allowed to have horseshoe crabs on their boats during the time that the state was shut down.

It will be interesting to see if the general assembly sides with Omega and their 250 employees at the risk of the of the lively hood of the holders of the 1620 commercial blue crab pot licenses, the supporting industry of the picking houses, bait dealers, seafood shops and restaurants.

Sam


Wrong again.

Some pertinent quotes of interest:

"Based on tagging studies, the Atlantic menhaden fishery is believed to exploit a single stock or population of fish." (Source: Addendum II to the Menhaden FMP)

"The status of the Atlantic menhaden stock is considered to be healthy coastwide, based on the recommeded benchmarks developed during the latest peer-reviewed assessment." (Source: Addendum II to the Menhaden FMP)

"There is no apparent relationship between resident fish in Chesapeake Bay and the recruitment the following year." (Source: Addendum II to the Menhaden FMP)

"Increased predation by predatory finfish and recovered seabirds has been raised as one possible cause of depletion of Atlantic menhaden in Chesapeake Bay." (Source: Addendum II to the Menhaden FMP)

"Fishery removals of age-0 menhaden in Chesapeake Bay is not a potential cause for depletion." (Source: Addendum II to the Menhaden FMP)

"Sufficient scientific data are not available to satisfactorily addresss the potential for localized depletion in the Bay or to indentify specific reasons for predator finfish deficiencies or low larval menhaden recruitment." (Source: Addendum II to the Menhaden FMP)

“The Commission has no science-based information indicating whether this [localized depletion] is happening.� (Source: Vince O’Shea, ASMFC Executive Director)

"Regulatory Recommendations: 1. The PRT has no recommendations relating to options included in Addendum II. 2. There are no further regulatory recommendations at this time." (Source: 2005 REVIEW OF THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
ATLANTIC MENHADEN)

"Based on the current biological reference points included in the fishery management plan, the stock assessment indicates that no adjustments to the management program are warranted at this time." (Source: Vince O’Shea, ASMFC Executive Director)

In short, a moratorium is not even an option, because as ASMFC scientists and staff maintain, no additional conservation measures are in fact necessary.

[fishLurker]

Hey, the way I look at it, Omega takes a disproportionate share of the menhaden that enter the Bay, regardless of thier origin. While I support Omega's right to harvest, I also support my right to support limits to that harvest to preventr negative impacts on other economic activity. If Omega wants to spend its shareholders money on a lawsuit, that's less they will spend on more profitable initiatives. Omega and its predecessors just don't want to have any new restrictions becasue they understanably fear what has happened in other states. If they play nice in Virginia, I think they can have a fishery in Va waters for decades. If they push, people will push back and 250 jobs in an obscure region of the state will lose the shoving contest. After all, with the new lucrative markets for OmegaPure products, Omega should be able to make a lot more money on the same or less harvest.

My 2 cents.

[junebug007]

fishlurker originally wrote:
Hey, the way I look at it, Omega takes a disproportionate share of the menhaden that enter the Bay, regardless of thier origin.

It's a public resource, yes? The public at large has a right to benefit from this enormous and underutilized fishery, wouldn't you agree? Or, should I just assume that you would like every American to go purchase their own boat and a cast net to reap the benefits of the menhaden fishery?

Omega and its predecessors just don't want to have any new restrictions becasue they understanably fear what has happened in other states.

You are aware that Omega adopted a voluntary quota on itself within the Bay?

If they play nice in Virginia, I think they can have a fishery in Va waters for decades. If they push, people will push back and 250 jobs in an obscure region of the state will lose the shoving contest.

Who, exactly, is going to "push back" to eliminate those 250 jobs in Virginia? The ASMFC is not in the business of telling states how to allocate their fisheries.

[Barefoot]

junebug007 originally wrote:
You are aware that Omega adopted a voluntary quota on itself within the Bay?
Voluntary?

[junebug007]

Barefoot originally wrote:
junebug007 originally wrote:
You are aware that Omega adopted a voluntary quota on itself within the Bay?
Voluntary?

Correct. I believe Omega Protein has already voluntarily imposed a 131,000 mt annual Bay harvest quota upon itself.

[Sea Gristle]

[/Q]
Correct. I believe Omega Protein has already voluntarily imposed a 131,000 mt annual Bay harvest quota upon itself.
[/Q]
How generous of them. Except that "voluntary" 131,000 mt they wanted to "cap" themselves at was higher than their past 5-year average.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
How generous of them. Except that "voluntary" 131,000 mt they wanted to "cap" themselves at was higher than their past 5-year average.


I agree, it was generous of Omega to impose a quota on itself, considering overfishing is not occurring, and no additional management measures are recommended by Commission scientists. As for the amount, it is equally generous and reasonable, considering that actual harvests comprising the 5-year average approached that amount. The extremes define the means, mind you.

Perhaps you can convince the sportfishing community to step up and take similar, proactive measures to address the LOCALIZED OVERABUNDANCE of striped bass in the Bay.

If sportfishermen want an ecosystem approach, then let's address the real source of the problem. It's not a shortage of menhaden, it's an overabundance of striped bass.

[Sea Gristle]

If there WAS an overabundance of healthy striped bass (oysters and crabs), there wouldn't be anybody worrying about menhaden.

And the study hasn't been done yet so there is NO EVIDENCE that there ISN'T a localized depletion.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
If there WAS an overabundance of healthy striped bass (oysters and crabs), there wouldn't be anybody worrying about menhaden.

And the study hasn't been done yet so there is NO EVIDENCE that there ISN'T a localized depletion.

Your rationale is illogical.

For starters, an overabundance of stripers (whether healthy or sickly) is an overabundance of stripers.

If these striped bass are sickly, as you apparently contend, then that would suggest that they are already exceeding the natural carrying capacity of the Bay ecosystem. This theory, as supported by Maryland scientific work, suggests that striped bass are overpopulating the Bay, and consequently, placing excessive pressure on prey species, including menhaden, anchovy, spot, blue crab, weakfish, etc.

Solution? Balance the ecosytem. To increase the numbers of prey species, managers need to decrease the number of predator species.

Additionally, I would add that the corollary to your (attempted) logic is there is NO EVIDENCE that there ISN'T a localized overabundance of striped bass, either. Yet, by your rationale, the ASMFC should immediately impose additional regulations to reduce striped bass populations.

Lastly, of note, there is NO EVIDENCE that there aren't aliens beaming up menhaden, striped bass and other fish onto their spaceships, either.[grin]

By your fuzzy logic, however, NO EVIDENCE = need for additional regulation. Thus, let's get on the sportfishermens' bandwagon to address the localized depletion of menhaden in the Bay caused by aliens.

[Sea Gristle]

Junebug, in your opinion, why are sportsman interested in a menhaden cap when they don't fish for them?

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
Junebug, in your opinion, why are sportsman interested in a menhaden cap when they don't fish for them?

You tell me.

I would speculate that sportsmen *think* Omega is removing too much forage. In reality, the majority of fish serving as forage to predators are age-0 menhaden and, to a significantly lesser degree, age-1 menhaden. Conversely, 90%+ of the fish within the Bay harvested by Omega are age-2+ fish. All totaled, scientists estimate that for every 1 forage-sized fish harvested by Omega, 1,200 are consumed by predators or die, to a lesser degree, of other natural causes.

Therefore, to offer an opinion on your question, I would say that the majority of sportsmen are unaware of these facts and, therefore, ignorance and/or fear drives their desire for a cap. For those sportsmen who are aware of the facts, I believe greed and/or blind hatred drives their action.

If you caught any of the public hearings on Addendum II, I think you'd agree that 90% of the commentors fell into one of these two categories, which is a shame. The disinformation circulated by the poor leadership of groups like the MSSA and others only hurts those sportsmen who are genuinely interested in real conservation, not commercial fishing bashing.

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:
For those sportsmen who are aware of the facts, I believe greed and/or blind hatred drives their action.


Why would sportsman be greedy for a fish that they only use a tiny portion of ( Bait & chum) the total menhaden taken annually? And why would they hate an industry that really has no effect on their sport given your assertion that there is a surplus of menhaden and striped bass?

[junebug007]

Why would sportsman be greedy for a fish that they only use a tiny portion of ( Bait & chum) the total menhaden taken annually? And why would they hate an industry that really has no effect on their sport given your assertion that there is a surplus of menhaden and striped bass?


Again, you tell me. You have different explanation?

[Sea Gristle]

Because there is no surplus of menhaden OR striped bass. They don't see the huge bunker schools of the past. They're not catching huge numbers of "surplus" rockfish and what scrawny, lesion-coverd ones they do have juvenile crabs, trout and croaker in their stomachs. The sea-run stripers are not coming into the Bay to fatten up for the winter like they once did, they stay out in the ocean where there are plenty of pogies to pump up on.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
Because there is no surplus of menhaden OR striped bass. They don't see the huge bunker schools of the past. They're not catching huge numbers of "surplus" rockfish and what scrawny, lesion-coverd ones they do have juvenile crabs, trout and croaker in their stomachs. The sea-run stripers are not coming into the Bay to fatten up for the winter like they once did, they stay out in the ocean where there are plenty of pogies to pump up on.


LOL! And on what are you basing these assertions? Personal opinion?

How about bluefish? Are they equally "scrawny" due to a lack of forage?

[Barefoot]

junebug007 originally wrote:
I believe Omega Protein has already voluntarily imposed a 131,000 mt annual Bay harvest quota upon itself.
Omega offered the 131,000 mt limit.
ASMFC voted to reject that limit.
ASMFC voted to put on a 106,000 mt limit.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
Because there is no surplus of menhaden OR striped bass. They don't see the huge bunker schools of the past. They're not catching huge numbers of "surplus" rockfish and what scrawny, lesion-coverd ones they do have juvenile crabs, trout and croaker in their stomachs. The sea-run stripers are not coming into the Bay to fatten up for the winter like they once did, they stay out in the ocean where there are plenty of pogies to pump up on.


Well, are you going to back up your assertions or what? Perhaps you're reporting the striped bass fishing conditions for Richmond?[grin]

[junebug007]

I will take the deafening silence of this board to my question as testiment to reality. Reality, of course, is:

(1) Fishing is great on the Bay
(2) Sportfishermen are catching lots of *fat* stripers and bluefish
(3) Most importantly, the menhaden "issue" and its response (Addendum II) are about as manufactured and misguided as they come.

As such, I wouldn't expect the VAGA to subject its citizens to the hijacked ASMFC process or its recommendations.

[Sam Whitefoot]

Let's see

Striped bass fishing is OK but the 28 to 34 inch slot no-take in Virginia was put in place in part because the exploitable biomass of Chesapeake Bay striped bass is down from years gone by when the overall bay quota was about 10 million pounds. There are less striped bass than in the early 90s.

The striped bass being caught in the middle/lower bay area are skinny, many have sores and many are not healthy.

Omega still is harvesting a substantial fraction of the coast wide standing stock of age 1, 2 and 3 year old menhaden. According to the ASMFC technical reports they harvest 30% to 50% of the age 2 and 3 fish each and every year. Most of that harvest is coming from a limited area known as the Chesapeake Bay. When most of the harvest of a stock of fish that roams up and down the coast comes from 10% to 20% of the range, there has to be local depletion in that area.

Maybe not last year but in recent years a substantial fraction of Omega's harvest was age 0 and 1 fish.

There is a recruitment problem and no one knows why. More menhaden have to make it to three years old so that they can lay eggs.

The area of hypoxic water was one of the largest in history. Larger populations of resident adult menhaden will help to remove nutrients from the water.

Reasonable limits on any fishery are necessary. The regulations have done nothing but open up in the past 40 years.

If the General Assembly does nothing, the Secretary of the Commerce will shut down the fishery, which will probably eliminate possession of menhaden in Virginia waters. This will devastate the blue crab fishery and associated jobs. Even if Omega goes to court and wins, the crabbers will be shut down for several months.

I would certainly hope that the General Assembly puts these REASONABLE limits, which is really STATUS QUO on the harvest of menhaden within state waters while the science is being done to fully understand the impact of the fish and fishery on state waters.

Sam

[junebug007]

Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
Let's see

Striped bass fishing is OK but the 28 to 34 inch slot no-take in Virginia was put in place in part because the exploitable biomass of Chesapeake Bay striped bass is down from years gone by when the overall bay quota was about 10 million pounds. There are less striped bass than in the early 90s.

The striped bass being caught in the middle/lower bay area are skinny, many have sores and many are not healthy.

Omega still is harvesting a substantial fraction of the coast wide standing stock of age 1, 2 and 3 year old menhaden. According to the ASMFC technical reports they harvest 30% to 50% of the age 2 and 3 fish each and every year. Most of that harvest is coming from a limited area known as the Chesapeake Bay. When most of the harvest of a stock of fish that roams up and down the coast comes from 10% to 20% of the range, there has to be local depletion in that area.

Maybe not last year but in recent years a substantial fraction of Omega's harvest was age 0 and 1 fish.

There is a recruitment problem and no one knows why. More menhaden have to make it to three years old so that they can lay eggs.

The area of hypoxic water was one of the largest in history. Larger populations of resident adult menhaden will help to remove nutrients from the water.

Reasonable limits on any fishery are necessary. The regulations have done nothing but open up in the past 40 years.

If the General Assembly does nothing, the Secretary of the Commerce will shut down the fishery, which will probably eliminate possession of menhaden in Virginia waters. This will devastate the blue crab fishery and associated jobs. Even if Omega goes to court and wins, the crabbers will be shut down for several months.

I would certainly hope that the General Assembly puts these REASONABLE limits, which is really STATUS QUO on the harvest of menhaden within state waters while the science is being done to fully understand the impact of the fish and fishery on state waters.

Sam

Your post is so riddled with erroneous and misleading statements... surely you've got to be joking?

For starters, to suggest that "there are less striped bass than in the early 90s" is ludicrous. The 2005 sb pop is estimated at 65 million fish. In 1990, it was 24 million.

To suggest that "the striped bass being caught in the middle/lower bay area are skinny" ignores the vast majority of on-water fishing reports I've reviewed online and in hardcopy print which indicate that stripers and bluefish are FAT, not skinny. If you have links to recent reports of "skinny" stripers, provide them, please.

On your accusation that Omega is causing "localized depletion", please provide a definition of localized depletion and detail why it's occurring and why it's a problem.

To state that, "maybe not last year but in recent years a substantial fraction of Omega's harvest was age 0 and 1 fish" is simply wrong. Omega historically has targeted and harvested age-2+ fish from the Bay. Get your facts straight.

To state that, "more menhaden have to make it to three years old so that they can lay eggs" is also wrong. The vast majority of menhaden become sexually mature DURING age-2. Moreover, no correlation exists between the spawning biomass in the Bay and subsequent recruitment to the Bay.

You state, "the area of hypoxic water was one of the largest in history." Bingo! If you want to develop a theory about a supposed lack of menhaden in MD waters, that's your best one yet.

You state, "larger populations of resident adult menhaden will help to remove nutrients from the water." Wrong. Menhaden serve only as a temporary sink of nutrients. Nutrients are NOT removed from the water until a menhaden is either caught or migrates elsewhere.

You state, "reasonable limits on any fishery are necessary. The regulations have done nothing but open up in the past 40 years." Reasonable fishing regulations already exist as codified within Virginia Code. To suggest that they have become more liberal over the past four decades is ludicrous.

Lastly, you state, "If the General Assembly does nothing, the Secretary of the Commerce will shut down the fishery." Wrong. The ASMFC's Addendum is not a mandatory compliance measure, rather, it is merely a recommendation. Without going into the details, simply read Section 5.0 (Compliance) of the Addendum, in which the ASMFC states that it "does not have authority to directly compel state implementation of these measures".

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:
I will take the deafening silence of this board to my question as testiment to reality. Reality, of course, is:

(1) Fishing is great on the Bay
(2) Sportfishermen are catching lots of *fat* stripers and bluefish
(3) Most importantly, the menhaden "issue" and its response (Addendum II) are about as manufactured and misguided as they come.

As such, I wouldn't expect the VAGA to subject its citizens to the hijacked ASMFC process or its recommendations.


LOL! I question your grip on reality...

[junebug007]

LOL! I question your grip on reality...

Ahhh... the old adage holds true. When you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.

In your previously posts, you asserted:

"Because there is no surplus of menhaden OR striped bass. They don't see the huge bunker schools of the past. They're not catching huge numbers of "surplus" rockfish and what scrawny, lesion-coverd ones they do have juvenile crabs, trout and croaker in their stomachs. The sea-run stripers are not coming into the Bay to fatten up for the winter like they once did, they stay out in the ocean where there are plenty of pogies to pump up on."

If you could provide references for these assertions, you would add to the discussion at hand. Otherwise, your posts can only be attributed to simple, unscientific postulation which, of course, has no place in guiding marine fisheries policy.

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:

If you could provide references for these assertions, you would add to the discussion at hand. Otherwise, your posts can only be attributed to simple, unscientific postulation which, of course, has no place in guiding marine fisheries policy.


junebug007 originally wrote:

Reality, of course, is:

(1) Fishing is great on the Bay
(2) Sportfishermen are catching lots of *fat* stripers and bluefish
(3) Most importantly, the menhaden "issue" and its response (Addendum II) are about as manufactured and misguided as they come.

junebug007 originally wrote:

To suggest that "the striped bass being caught in the middle/lower bay area are skinny" ignores the vast majority of on-water fishing reports I've reviewed online and in hardcopy print which indicate that stripers and bluefish are FAT, not skinny.


LOL! C'mon Junebug, lighten up! Your own "unscientific postulations" demonstrate there's no such thing as "reality", there are only opinions. Some of them are called "scientific" (usually by the "scientists" posing them) but they are still just subjective points of view.

Methinks you don't "LOL!" as much as you claim...

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
LOL! C'mon Junebug, lighten up! Your own "unscientific postulations" demonstrate there's no such thing as "reality", there are only opinions. Some of them are called "scientific" (usually by the "scientists" posing them) but they are still just subjective points of view.

Methinks you don't "LOL!" as much as you claim...

Thank you for your post. It is worth its weight in gold, as it demonstrates the exact reasons why the efforts of CCA and CBF are misguided and unbased, and will ultimately end in complete failure. They just don't get it.

For the record, you began this thread with the question as to whether the Virginia Legislature is "ready to risk a complete shut down of the menhaden fishery?" That you now consider this a laughing matter is telling. I can assure you that the good people of Reedville do not share your flippant attitude.

[Sea Gristle]

Ahhh... the old adage holds true. When you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.

[Sam Whitefoot]

On striped bass I was referring to the Chesapeake Bay exploitable biomass. Those are the resident fish in Virginia and Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay. The exploitable biomass does not include the coastal migrants which are most of the larger fish. That biomass sets the overall harvest levels from the Chesapeake Bay and it’s tributaries. That biomass being low is why we had reductions last year and should have had for three or four years previous to that.

The reports of skinny fish are reports that I have received during Oct. mabye they are doing better now. That being said, there are several reports on these board regarding fish with sores. I guess you are not reading those.

From the ASMFC menhaden facts sheet.

Sexual maturity begins just before age three, with major spawning areas from the Carolinas to New Jersey; the majority of spawning occurs primarily offshore (20-30 miles) during winter.

That says BEGINS in most species they talk about a certain relatively small fraction reaching sexual maturity during one year and a much larger fraction the following year. I stand by my statement that more fish need to survive to three in order to improve the spawning stock biomass. More adult fish will lead to more eggs. Man can control how many fish that we take out of the population, until we understand recruitment issues better that MAN can do is work to increase the spawning stock biomass.

As far as recruitment is concerned, do you know of a real study on age 0 populations or are using the fish from the ASMFC model where the age 0 fish are back calculated based on the age 1, 2 and 3 fish. In those studies the age 0 to age 1 mortality is a constant 1.35% +/- 0.02% survival rate over a 50 year period. With a natural mortality rate that constant the numbers can not be real.

According to the ASMFC Technical report, in 2002 industry harvest number in number of fish by age was:

Harvested by Reduction industry in 2002

Age -- Number fish harvested at age
0 -- 178,200,000
1 -- 211,700,000
2 -- 259,800,000
3 -- 135,800,000
4 -- 17,100,000
5 -- 500,000

Age -- % of harvest by age

0 -- 22.19%
1 -- 26.36%
2 -- 32.35%
3 -- 16.91%
4 -- 2.13%
5 -- 0.06%

I would say that 48.5% of the harvest being age 0 and 1 fish was a substantial fraction. I have seen other reports attributed to NOAA staff that indicated that they bay harvest was 20% to 30% age 0 and 1 fish.

Don’t adult menhaden migrate out of the bay? If so they take the nutrients with them.

Here is the complance paragraph to which you are referring.


5.0 Compliance
Full implementation of the provisions of this Amendment is necessary for the
management program to be equitable, efficient and effective. States are expected to
implement these measures faithfully under state laws. Although the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission does not have authority to directly compel state
implementation of these measures, it will continually monitor the effectiveness of state
implementation and determine whether states are in compliance with the provisions of
this fishery management plan. This section sets forth the specific elements states must
implement in order to be in compliance with this Addendum, and the procedures that will
govern the evaluation of compliance. Additional details of the procedures in the ASMFC
Interstate Fisheries Management Program Charter (ASMFC 2000).

ASFMC cannot compel a state to implement the measures. However, ASMFC will judge if a state is out of Compliance. Once determining that ASMFC is required by federal law to forward that finding to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is the one to shut a fishery down if a state fails to come into compliance.

Regarding the regulations. A Tom Powers posted this on tidal fish last year. I copied it at the end of this post. It sure looks to me like they have pretty much have only added time to the beginning and end of the season since the late 60s. I will admit that they did close some small creeks and rivers since the 1974 but most of those are shallow water anyway. I will let the readers make up their own minds.



1946 -

Section 3159 ? License regulation fees $15 for sailing vessels net less than 400 meshes deep, $50 sailing vessel with a net more than 400 meshes deep, steam or power vessel >20 hp $1 per ton, minimum $100, max $200. Two areas the first is the bay which was reserved for Virginia residents and the coastal waters for residents and non-residents. Failure to have a license or for the water being fished netted a fine between $500 and $2000 with a mandatory loss of nets vessels along with ?other thing used by such person, firm, or corporation in taking, or catching fish, or manufacturing them into oil, fish scrap, fish meal, or manure?

Section 3167 ? Food fish not to be taken bought or sold for manufacture into guano, fish meal, or oil; percentage allowable; penalty. Maximum bycatch of 1%. Fine between $1000 and $3000 with mandatory loss of license for the remainder of the season.

3175 ? Closed season for menhaden fishing forbidden nets; penalty ? Closed between December 1 and the last Monday in May. Fine between $500 and $1000.

3176 ? Details on what it means to qualify for an instate license. Fine $500 to $2000 with loss of boats, nets, etc.

1966 -

28.1-58 Food fish not to be taken bought or sold for manufacture into . . . 1% bycatch limit, no sale of bycatch allowed. Conviction is a misdemeanor and license is suspended for remainder of the season.

28.1-65 Closed season between Dec. 1 and Last Monday in May

28.1-59 and 60 ? Residents may fish all waters nonresidents may only fish coastal waters. Season closed last Dec. 1 to last Monday in May.

Excepted waters. (I think that this was added in 1966 as per the footnote in the code book)

a. Piankatank river west of the northern most edge of Qwinn?s Island North to the easternmost edge of the highland on Stingray point.
b. Rappahannock River above R.O. Norris Bridge
c. York River west of a line extending northerly from the western line of godwin Islands through the western lind of Ellen Island to the northern bake of the York.
d. In the East, North, Ware, and Severn rivers.

1968 no change

1974 -

Changes.
28.1-65 Season closed from Dec. 20 until last Monday in May. (Added 20 days to the season.)

28.1-60(3) Non resident (coastal waters) closed season Dec. 1 until last Monday in May.


21.1-58 (3) Excepted waters. (Add e. through z. although they are all in section 3-e in code)

a. Piankatank river west of the northern most edge of Gwynn?s Island North to the easternmost edge of the highland on Stingray point.
b. Rappahannock River above R.O. Norris Bridge
c. York River west of a line extending northerly from the western line of godwin Islands through the western lind of Ellen Island to the northern bank of the York.
d. In the East, North, Ware, and Severn rivers.
e. Cape Charles harbor eastward of a line from the western tip of the jetty on the southern side of the channel to the westernmost tip of the jetty on the northern side of the channel.
f. In Kings Creek and Cherrystone Inlet eastward of a line from the western end of the jetty on the north side of Cape Charles harbor to the southern end of Wescoat Point.
g. In the Mattowoman and Hungars creek eastward of a line from the northwestern most tip of land in Old Town Neck to Great Neck Point.
h. In Nassawadox Creek eastward of a line from Shooting Point to Nassawandox Point;
i. In Occohannock Creek eastward of a line from Sparrow Point to the southernmost tip of Powells Bluff.
j. In Nandua Creek eastward of a line from the northern most point of Milbys Point to the southwestern most point of land in Hacks Neck, said line having a true bearing of 027*.
k. In Pungoteague Creek eastwared of aline from Bluff point to the southeastern most point of Finneys Island;
l. In onancock Creek eastward of a line from Thicket Point to Ware Point;
m. In Chesconessix Creek eastward of a line from the northernmost point of South Beach to the northwestern most point of Beach Island.
n. In Deep Creek, Hunting Creek, and Guilford Creek eastwared of a line from the eastern most tip of Russel Island to halfmoon Point to Peters Point to Simpson Point to Flood Point to Ebb Point to the mouth of Great Gut
o. In Messongo Creek Eastward of a line from south point to North Point
p. In the Virginia portion of Pocomocke River northeast of a line from Long Point to VA-MD spar bouy ?A?
q. In Dividing Creek, Prentice Creek and Jarvis Creek Westward of a line from Hughlett Point to Jarvis Point
r. In Indian Creek and Henry?s Creek from a line from the southernmost point of land on the eastern side of the mouth of Henry?s Creek to the easternmost point of Fleets Bay Neck
s. In Dymers Creek westward of a line from the southernmost point of Grog Island to the easternmost point of Poplar Neck
t. In Tabbs Creek westward of the line across the mouth of the creek and its narrowest point;
u. In Horn Harbor and dyer Creek westwared of a line from the southern most tip of Beach Point to the northernmost point on the south side of the mouth of Dyer Creek.
v. In Back Creek and Claxton Creek westward of a line from the southernmost point of Goodwin Island to the Northernmost point of Green Point
w. In Chisman Creek, Poquoson River and Bennetts Creek westward of a line from York Point to Hunts Point and southward to a line from Hunts Hunts Point to the westward most point of Cow Island;
x. In Back River westward westward of a line from Plumtree point to the westernmost point of Northend point.
y. In Little Creek southward of a line from the north point of the west Jetty to the north point of the east Jetty.
z. In Lynnhaven bay southward of the Lynnhaven bay southward of the Lynnhaven inlet bridge on US RT. 60.

1975 - Changes
28.1-81.1 No harvest for reduction license for Non-US citizen.

1976 changes.
28.1-60(3) and 28.1-65 change Open season from third Monday in May to third Friday of November, inclusive.

1980 - Changes

Section 28.1-60 changed Allowed non state residents to take menhaden for reduction purposes anywhere in VA.

28.1-81.1 Repealed non Citizens covered by a federal licenses

28.1-59(4) Opened waters to vessels less than 100 Gross Tons Areas defined as all areas open and additionally to the areas for all purse seine boats in addition are authorized to fish in:

a. Rappahannock River eastward and southward of a line extending from towels Point to Burnham Wharf and from Orchard Point to Towles Point;
b. In Dividing Creek eastward from a line extending from Jarvis Point to Ditchley Pump House;
c. In Indian Creek eastward from a line directly across the creek at Rappahannock Oyster Company, in Dymers Creek eastward from a line directly across the creek at the eastern end of standard Products doc.

Section 28.1-59-3(e) added (between my p and q)

(p1) The great Wicomico River from the mouth of Whay?s Creek, to Sandy Point.

And

w. In Back Creek and Claxton Creek westward of a line from the southernmost point of Goodwin Island to the Northernmost point of Green Point
x. In Chisman Creek, Poquoson River and Bennetts Creek westward of a line from York Point to Hunts Point and southward to a line from Hunts Hunts Point to the westward most point of Cow Island;

Changed to:

wx. In Back Creek, Clarkston Creek, Chisman Creek, Poquoson River and Bennetts Creek and adjacent waters westward of a line from the southeastern most point of Goodwin Island to the western most point of Cow Island.

1984 (or a few years earlier) -

28.1-59(4) Changed 100 tons to 70 tons for the boats excepted in the upper Rappahannock.

28.1-65-1 Season for vessels less than 70 tons. Not for reduction Open from the First Monday in March to, but not including, the first Monday in May. (enacted in 1982 I think)

1988 -

28.1-65 The waters east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel are to be closed between the Friday before Christmas and the day preceding the first Monday in May. (added 4 weeks in the fall and four weeks in the spring.)

1992 changed numbering systems in the code book.

2004 No changes since 1988

Sam

[junebug007]

Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
On striped bass I was referring to the Chesapeake Bay exploitable biomass. Those are the resident fish in Virginia and Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay. The exploitable biomass does not include the coastal migrants which are most of the larger fish. That biomass sets the overall harvest levels from the Chesapeake Bay and it’s tributaries. That biomass being low is why we had reductions last year and should have had for three or four years previous to that.

The reports of skinny fish are reports that I have received during Oct. mabye they are doing better now. That being said, there are several reports on these board regarding fish with sores. I guess you are not reading those.

From the ASMFC menhaden facts sheet.

Sexual maturity begins just before age three, with major spawning areas from the Carolinas to New Jersey; the majority of spawning occurs primarily offshore (20-30 miles) during winter.

That says BEGINS in most species they talk about a certain relatively small fraction reaching sexual maturity during one year and a much larger fraction the following year. I stand by my statement that more fish need to survive to three in order to improve the spawning stock biomass. More adult fish will lead to more eggs. Man can control how many fish that we take out of the population, until we understand recruitment issues better that MAN can do is work to increase the spawning stock biomass.

As far as recruitment is concerned, do you know of a real study on age 0 populations or are using the fish from the ASMFC model where the age 0 fish are back calculated based on the age 1, 2 and 3 fish. In those studies the age 0 to age 1 mortality is a constant 1.35% +/- 0.02% survival rate over a 50 year period. With a natural mortality rate that constant the numbers can not be real.

According to the ASMFC Technical report, in 2002 industry harvest number in number of fish by age was:

Harvested by Reduction industry in 2002

Age -- Number fish harvested at age
0 -- 178,200,000
1 -- 211,700,000
2 -- 259,800,000
3 -- 135,800,000
4 -- 17,100,000
5 -- 500,000

Age -- % of harvest by age

0 -- 22.19%
1 -- 26.36%
2 -- 32.35%
3 -- 16.91%
4 -- 2.13%
5 -- 0.06%

I would say that 48.5% of the harvest being age 0 and 1 fish was a substantial fraction. I have seen other reports attributed to NOAA staff that indicated that they bay harvest was 20% to 30% age 0 and 1 fish.

Don’t adult menhaden migrate out of the bay? If so they take the nutrients with them.

Here is the complance paragraph to which you are referring.


5.0 Compliance
Full implementation of the provisions of this Amendment is necessary for the
management program to be equitable, efficient and effective. States are expected to
implement these measures faithfully under state laws. Although the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission does not have authority to directly compel state
implementation of these measures, it will continually monitor the effectiveness of state
implementation and determine whether states are in compliance with the provisions of
this fishery management plan. This section sets forth the specific elements states must
implement in order to be in compliance with this Addendum, and the procedures that will
govern the evaluation of compliance. Additional details of the procedures in the ASMFC
Interstate Fisheries Management Program Charter (ASMFC 2000).

ASFMC cannot compel a state to implement the measures. However, ASMFC will judge if a state is out of Compliance. Once determining that ASMFC is required by federal law to forward that finding to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce is the one to shut a fishery down if a state fails to come into compliance.

Regarding the regulations. A Tom Powers posted this on tidal fish last year. I copied it at the end of this post. It sure looks to me like they have pretty much have only added time to the beginning and end of the season since the late 60s. I will admit that they did close some small creeks and rivers since the 1974 but most of those are shallow water anyway. I will let the readers make up their own minds.



1946 -

Section 3159 ? License regulation fees $15 for sailing vessels net less than 400 meshes deep, $50 sailing vessel with a net more than 400 meshes deep, steam or power vessel >20 hp $1 per ton, minimum $100, max $200. Two areas the first is the bay which was reserved for Virginia residents and the coastal waters for residents and non-residents. Failure to have a license or for the water being fished netted a fine between $500 and $2000 with a mandatory loss of nets vessels along with ?other thing used by such person, firm, or corporation in taking, or catching fish, or manufacturing them into oil, fish scrap, fish meal, or manure?

Section 3167 ? Food fish not to be taken bought or sold for manufacture into guano, fish meal, or oil; percentage allowable; penalty. Maximum bycatch of 1%. Fine between $1000 and $3000 with mandatory loss of license for the remainder of the season.

3175 ? Closed season for menhaden fishing forbidden nets; penalty ? Closed between December 1 and the last Monday in May. Fine between $500 and $1000.

3176 ? Details on what it means to qualify for an instate license. Fine $500 to $2000 with loss of boats, nets, etc.

1966 -

28.1-58 Food fish not to be taken bought or sold for manufacture into . . . 1% bycatch limit, no sale of bycatch allowed. Conviction is a misdemeanor and license is suspended for remainder of the season.

28.1-65 Closed season between Dec. 1 and Last Monday in May

28.1-59 and 60 ? Residents may fish all waters nonresidents may only fish coastal waters. Season closed last Dec. 1 to last Monday in May.

Excepted waters. (I think that this was added in 1966 as per the footnote in the code book)

a. Piankatank river west of the northern most edge of Qwinn?s Island North to the easternmost edge of the highland on Stingray point.
b. Rappahannock River above R.O. Norris Bridge
c. York River west of a line extending northerly from the western line of godwin Islands through the western lind of Ellen Island to the northern bake of the York.
d. In the East, North, Ware, and Severn rivers.

1968 no change

1974 -

Changes.
28.1-65 Season closed from Dec. 20 until last Monday in May. (Added 20 days to the season.)

28.1-60(3) Non resident (coastal waters) closed season Dec. 1 until last Monday in May.


21.1-58 (3) Excepted waters. (Add e. through z. although they are all in section 3-e in code)

a. Piankatank river west of the northern most edge of Gwynn?s Island North to the easternmost edge of the highland on Stingray point.
b. Rappahannock River above R.O. Norris Bridge
c. York River west of a line extending northerly from the western line of godwin Islands through the western lind of Ellen Island to the northern bank of the York.
d. In the East, North, Ware, and Severn rivers.
e. Cape Charles harbor eastward of a line from the western tip of the jetty on the southern side of the channel to the westernmost tip of the jetty on the northern side of the channel.
f. In Kings Creek and Cherrystone Inlet eastward of a line from the western end of the jetty on the north side of Cape Charles harbor to the southern end of Wescoat Point.
g. In the Mattowoman and Hungars creek eastward of a line from the northwestern most tip of land in Old Town Neck to Great Neck Point.
h. In Nassawadox Creek eastward of a line from Shooting Point to Nassawandox Point;
i. In Occohannock Creek eastward of a line from Sparrow Point to the southernmost tip of Powells Bluff.
j. In Nandua Creek eastward of a line from the northern most point of Milbys Point to the southwestern most point of land in Hacks Neck, said line having a true bearing of 027*.
k. In Pungoteague Creek eastwared of aline from Bluff point to the southeastern most point of Finneys Island;
l. In onancock Creek eastward of a line from Thicket Point to Ware Point;
m. In Chesconessix Creek eastward of a line from the northernmost point of South Beach to the northwestern most point of Beach Island.
n. In Deep Creek, Hunting Creek, and Guilford Creek eastwared of a line from the eastern most tip of Russel Island to halfmoon Point to Peters Point to Simpson Point to Flood Point to Ebb Point to the mouth of Great Gut
o. In Messongo Creek Eastward of a line from south point to North Point
p. In the Virginia portion of Pocomocke River northeast of a line from Long Point to VA-MD spar bouy ?A?
q. In Dividing Creek, Prentice Creek and Jarvis Creek Westward of a line from Hughlett Point to Jarvis Point
r. In Indian Creek and Henry?s Creek from a line from the southernmost point of land on the eastern side of the mouth of Henry?s Creek to the easternmost point of Fleets Bay Neck
s. In Dymers Creek westward of a line from the southernmost point of Grog Island to the easternmost point of Poplar Neck
t. In Tabbs Creek westward of the line across the mouth of the creek and its narrowest point;
u. In Horn Harbor and dyer Creek westwared of a line from the southern most tip of Beach Point to the northernmost point on the south side of the mouth of Dyer Creek.
v. In Back Creek and Claxton Creek westward of a line from the southernmost point of Goodwin Island to the Northernmost point of Green Point
w. In Chisman Creek, Poquoson River and Bennetts Creek westward of a line from York Point to Hunts Point and southward to a line from Hunts Hunts Point to the westward most point of Cow Island;
x. In Back River westward westward of a line from Plumtree point to the westernmost point of Northend point.
y. In Little Creek southward of a line from the north point of the west Jetty to the north point of the east Jetty.
z. In Lynnhaven bay southward of the Lynnhaven bay southward of the Lynnhaven inlet bridge on US RT. 60.

1975 - Changes
28.1-81.1 No harvest for reduction license for Non-US citizen.

1976 changes.
28.1-60(3) and 28.1-65 change Open season from third Monday in May to third Friday of November, inclusive.

1980 - Changes

Section 28.1-60 changed Allowed non state residents to take menhaden for reduction purposes anywhere in VA.

28.1-81.1 Repealed non Citizens covered by a federal licenses

28.1-59(4) Opened waters to vessels less than 100 Gross Tons Areas defined as all areas open and additionally to the areas for all purse seine boats in addition are authorized to fish in:

a. Rappahannock River eastward and southward of a line extending from towels Point to Burnham Wharf and from Orchard Point to Towles Point;
b. In Dividing Creek eastward from a line extending from Jarvis Point to Ditchley Pump House;
c. In Indian Creek eastward from a line directly across the creek at Rappahannock Oyster Company, in Dymers Creek eastward from a line directly across the creek at the eastern end of standard Products doc.

Section 28.1-59-3(e) added (between my p and q)

(p1) The great Wicomico River from the mouth of Whay?s Creek, to Sandy Point.

And

w. In Back Creek and Claxton Creek westward of a line from the southernmost point of Goodwin Island to the Northernmost point of Green Point
x. In Chisman Creek, Poquoson River and Bennetts Creek westward of a line from York Point to Hunts Point and southward to a line from Hunts Hunts Point to the westward most point of Cow Island;

Changed to:

wx. In Back Creek, Clarkston Creek, Chisman Creek, Poquoson River and Bennetts Creek and adjacent waters westward of a line from the southeastern most point of Goodwin Island to the western most point of Cow Island.

1984 (or a few years earlier) -

28.1-59(4) Changed 100 tons to 70 tons for the boats excepted in the upper Rappahannock.

28.1-65-1 Season for vessels less than 70 tons. Not for reduction Open from the First Monday in March to, but not including, the first Monday in May. (enacted in 1982 I think)

1988 -

28.1-65 The waters east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel are to be closed between the Friday before Christmas and the day preceding the first Monday in May. (added 4 weeks in the fall and four weeks in the spring.)

1992 changed numbering systems in the code book.

2004 No changes since 1988

Sam


Here are the facts:

The striped bass stock in the Bay is currently underutilized. Harvests could be raised significantly without overfishing the stock.

The striped bass currently caught in the Bay are not only healthy, many of them are described as FAT by the sportsfishermen.

The vast majority of menhaden reach sexual maturity by the time they turn age-3. In fact some age-1 fish are mature. The SSB (fecundity, actually) is VERY healthy and is at or above levels that have historically produced huge recruitment. Recruitment is not the problem, apparently.... survivorship is.

The 2002 harvest numbers are not reflective of current or the majority of harvests over the past decade.

As for the question as to whether adult menhaden migrate out of the Bay (and hence, take nitrogen with them), yes, of course that occurs. But, of course, they also swim back into the Bay the following year, so your point is moot.

Regarding compliance, you are misguided as to what the ASMFC can do as it relates to ACFCMA. Do your own research or wait until next Spring to read about it.

Finally, regarding regulations, you've omitted the littany of self-imposed voluntary measures of Omega added through the years. Most importantly, ask yourself this: have Omega's harvests increased or decreased over the past decade? Has a quota existed over this time? Enough said.

You're out fighting windmills, my friend. You and some other sportfishermen are battling a non-existant enemy and 'threat'.

[Four Js]

I got a question junebug. Who do you feel owns the menhaden Omega or the people who live in the state of Va and if the people own them shouldnt they be able to say if they wantt or dont want the fishery to continue as it has for years. I have watched the boats work the mouth of the Rapp with NO reguard to even the charter captians who MAKE their liveing from the same waters yet we all have to feel for the 200 jobs in Reedville but Omega doesnt extend the same? The resource belongs to ALL of US. Time has come to stand up for our resources.

[junebug007]

Four Js originally wrote:
I got a question junebug. Who do you feel owns the menhaden Omega or the people who live in the state of Va and if the people own them shouldnt they be able to say if they wantt or dont want the fishery to continue as it has for years. I have watched the boats work the mouth of the Rapp with NO reguard to even the charter captians who MAKE their liveing from the same waters yet we all have to feel for the 200 jobs in Reedville but Omega doesnt extend the same? The resource belongs to ALL of US. Time has come to stand up for our resources.


An excellent question.

In my opinion, menhaden, like all public fishery resources belong to the citizens of the United States. As such, the majority of Americans from Washington, D.C. to Witchita to Walla Walla maintain their access to these resources through commercial fishermen.

Americans reap the benefit of this commercial access by way of pork and poultry products, to newer Omega-3 laden oils. Fact is, recreational fishermen like you comprise a relatively small minority (roughly 10%) of the American public, so it is the rights of the remaining 90% that shine through in Omega's continued harvests.

While the sportfishermen on this board are free to voice their criticisms of commercial fishing, you should recognize that the silent majority of Virginians and American citizens supports the renewable and responsible commercial harvest of menahaden and other commercial fisheries.

[Sam Whitefoot]

With respect to recruitment or survivorship. I have not heard or seen of any study that distinguished between the two. As far as I know no one really knows how many age 0 fish there really are. Do you have a reference study that talks about that.

Surviving to age 3 is the key so that the SSB could be improved. That is the only thing that fisheries managers can do withing this stock structure. Here is the percenage of harvested by age (coast wide) for age 0 ,1 and 2 which are prespawn or at least mostly prespawn fish. 81% of the harvest that is a lot of not fully mature fish to be harvesting.

1991 90.37%
1992 93.66%
1993 89.71%
1994 83.91%
1995 76.82%
1996 84.43%
1997 69.95%
1998 79.25%
1999 89.55%
2000 81.00%
2001 65.15%
2002 80.90%


Here is the percentage of the coast wide harvest that were age 0 and 1 fish, taken from an ASMFC technical committee report. The average for the entire period was 43.1% the average for 1992 to 2002 is 32.1%.

1955 46.02%
1956 59.18%
1957 54.09%
1958 35.46%
1959 75.65%
1960 12.73%
1961 32.05%
1962 26.94%
1963 46.53%
1964 58.21%
1965 66.09%
1966 67.15%
1967 65.04%
1968 46.31%
1969 61.10%
1970 63.60%
1971 34.69%
1972 60.18%
1973 34.96%
1974 47.84%
1975 47.11%
1976 57.44%
1977 40.53%
1978 36.35%
1979 54.66%
1980 47.01%
1981 47.34%
1982 32.54%
1983 37.58%
1984 65.34%
1985 56.62%
1986 16.87%
1987 23.65%
1988 28.80%
1989 49.58%
1990 20.43%
1991 60.50%
1992 54.90%
1993 28.04%
1994 24.34%
1995 35.93%
1996 22.24%
1997 27.32%
1998 25.59%
1999 46.87%
2000 29.20%
2001 9.94%
2002 48.55%

I do understand what ASMFC has the power to do. I have seen them shut down fisheries in the past. It will be interesting to see what happens this spring.

Sam

[junebug007]

Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
With respect to recruitment or survivorship. I have not heard or seen of any study that distinguished between the two. As far as I know no one really knows how many age 0 fish there really are. Do you have a reference study that talks about that.

The terms are different. Think of it in context of examining larvae production vs. the percentage of those larvae that reach a certain age, whether that be recruitment to age-1 (generally referred to as "recruitment") or recruitment to the fishery (generally at age-2+). Age-0 numbers can be estimated through several ways, including direct measures (juvenile surveys and harvests) and indirect measures (virtual population analyses), for example.

Surviving to age 3 is the key so that the SSB could be improved. That is the only thing that fisheries managers can do withing this stock structure. Here is the percenage of harvested by age (coast wide) for age 0 ,1 and 2 which are prespawn or at least mostly prespawn fish. 81% of the harvest that is a lot of not fully mature fish to be harvesting.

Again, your assertion about menhaden not reaching sexual maturity until they are age-3 is simply wrong. Since you don't seem to believe my word, here is an excerpt from the ASMFC's TC documentation:

"Some Atlantic menhaden become sexually mature during their second year (late age-1), but most do not mature until their third year (late age-2) (Higham and Nicholson 1964; Lewis et al. 1987)."

I would add that your preoccupation with the absolute SSB size is equally misguided. In reality, a bigger SSB doesn't result in greater recruitment. Moreover, the current SSB size (actually measured by fecundity now) is at levels that have historically provided significant recruitment events. Furthermore, I would add that it appears this year's recruitment was very strong.

Lastly, to suggest that protecting menhaden from harvest is the "only thing that fisheries managers can do withing this stock structure" is wrong. Adjusting (read: reducing) predation is another obvious choice.

Here is the percentage of the coast wide harvest that were age 0 and 1 fish, taken from an ASMFC technical committee report. The average for the entire period was 43.1% the average for 1992 to 2002 is 32.1%.

What's your point?

I do understand what ASMFC has the power to do. I have seen them shut down fisheries in the past. It will be interesting to see what happens this spring.

No, I don't think you understand fully what power the ASMFC has or doesn't have. Read ACFCMA and ask yourself this question, "Has overfishing been identified within the Atlantic menhaden population?" It is at that point, my friend, that you will realize these circumstances are far different than those to which you refer.

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:

Read ACFCMA and ask yourself this question, "Has overfishing been identified within the Atlantic menhaden population?"


This is the same dodge Omega uses all the time, quoting ASMFC's own reports - except that those are ATLANTIC menhaden stocks. It's localized, Chesapeake Bay stocks that are in question. Until a study of Chesapeake bay stocks ONLY is done, the coast wide stats are invalid for the purposes of arguing localized depletion.

[Sam Whitefoot]

Junebug,

Are you sure that you don’t work as an Omega lobbyist? You sure are good at using half quotes just like them. Here is the entire section from the technical report that you quoted.

“2.1 Age
Some Atlantic menhaden become sexually mature during their second year (late age-1), but most do not mature until their third year (late age-2) (Higham and Nicholson 1964; Lewis et al. 1987). Spawning occurs primarily in late fall and winter. Thus, most Atlantic menhaden spawn for the first time at age-2 or -3 - just before or after their third birthday (by convention, on March 1) and continue spawning every year until death. First-spawning age-3 fish have accounted for most of the stock’s egg production since 1965 (Vaughan and Smith 1988). Atlantic menhaden mature at smaller sizes at the southern end of their range - 180 mm fork length (FL) in the south Atlantic region versus 210 mm FL in the Chesapeake Bay area and 230mm in the north and middle Atlantic regions because of latitudinal differences in size-at-age and the fact that larger fish of a given age are distributed father north than smaller fish of the same cohort (Lewis et al. 1987).�

It seems you left of the following from that report First-spawning age-3 fish have accounted for most of the stock’s egg production since 1965

Seeing as the Virginia reduction season is closed for three months prior to their third birthday and for two months afterwards. MOST (I did not say all) of the age 2 and younger fish that are harvested have yet to spawn.

My point on the numbers is to counter your statement that my previous assertions regarding harvest percentages where you said “The 2002 harvest numbers are not reflective of current or the majority of harvests over the past decade.� It sure looks like it was consistent with the harvest practices for the past decade.

If by ACFCMA you mean the federal law. I have read it. In the definitions section it has the following:

(8) The term ''fishery'' means -
(A) one or more stocks of fish that can be treated as a unit
for purposes of conservation and management and that are
identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical,
commercial, recreational, or economic characteristics; or
(B) any fishing for such stocks.

It seems to be that ASMFC has said that there is a concern with fishery as identified by on a geographical basis (i.e. within the Chesapeake Bay) and they want to see things stay status quo for a while.

On your statement “Age-0 numbers can be estimated through several ways, including direct measures (juvenile surveys and harvests) and indirect measures (virtual population analyses), for example.�

Juvenile surveys – the only one that I am aware of is the MD survey which indicates that the YOY has been pretty poor for the past several years. If you have other juvenile survey data I would be most interested in having you post the actual numbers as well as the reference.

The VPA data is simply back calculated based on age 2 and 3 populations. It is the basis of the ASMFC technical report population numbers. The older fish may be based on CPUE, and some survey data. On those ages the total mortality varies from year to year. On the age 0 to age 1 total mortality ranged from 1.3401% to 1.3325% or a whopping 0.0076% total variation over a 50 year period. That is to consistent to be true. Furthermore if, as is your assertion the problem is predation then shouldn’t the survival rate gone up substantially when the striped bass population crashed back in the late 80s.

Sam

[capt.george]

-----All this "Sitting Behind a Desk Talk" infurates me---All the Studies, Quotas,Omega vs Fishermen BS-Dosen't help the problem--

----Virginia will always be blessed with Fish, Game & Bait--Its location near the Atlantic promises that---

---Maryland Will continue to be the nursery for the east coast's rockfish population---

-----Can't Omega & Fishermen groups SIT down & create a Plan to Allow SOME mature Alewifes to migrate into Maryland waters ?

---Omega's Captains & local Managers surely know the best time & conditions to allow this---It could be Experemential at first, to see if it works ----

----Think of the outcome, A little Co-operation from both sides could create this---Sucess W/o war --No i'm not a Librial, just a ole man that hopes this problem can be solved ----Maryland Awaits-----[grin]

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
This is the same dodge Omega uses all the time, quoting ASMFC's own reports - except that those are ATLANTIC menhaden stocks. It's localized, Chesapeake Bay stocks that are in question. Until a study of Chesapeake bay stocks ONLY is done, the coast wide stats are invalid for the purposes of arguing localized depletion.

One last time: According to scientists, exactly ONE stock of Atlantic menhaden exists. The term "Atlantic" menhaden simply refers to the name of the species. No Bay or other substock exists, so the concept of LD is moot.

[junebug007]

Sam-

I appreciate your acknowledging the reality that menhaden become sexually mature prior to age-3.

As for targeting age-2 fish, if you'd like menhaden fishermen to target age 3+ fish, ask yourself this: (1) where are these fish generally found during the summer?; and (2) do you really want fishermen focusing their efforts on the principle spawning stock???

Regarding ACFCMA, you're off base. You'll understand soon enough.

Regarding survivorship, the bass resource crashed before the late 80's and, of course, menhaden survivorship correlates fairly closely to the bass population.

[Sam Whitefoot]

Yes I acknowledge that SOME probably a small percentage spawn before they reach age 3. However, that technical report clearly said that MOST of the spawning stock was age 3. What I think is correct is that the reduction industry focus on fish at an age and time when the majority of the fish have spawned. That would be age 3 fish after the spring spawn.

Here is the survival rate for the 80's I only see one low year and that was age 2 to 3 in 1989. In that year the industry harvested 74.4% of the standing stock of age 2 fish. As compared to a 1955 to 2002 average of about 50% over the 50 year time frame of the data. 74.4% of the STANDING stock. That is a lot of fish where most of them are prespawn fish.


Year Age 0-1 Age 1-2 Age 2-3
1980 1.3365% 30.39% 17.75%
1981 1.3383% 29.60% 15.68%
1982 1.3370% 28.83% 13.49%
1983 1.3370% 27.90% 21.92%
1984 1.3365% 31.03% 31.88%
1985 1.3375% 33.48% 29.45%
1986 1.3392% 32.89% 24.11%
1987 1.3387% 31.70% 20.65%
1988 1.3386% 30.65% 23.57%
1989 1.3372% 31.56% 14.29%
1990 1.3377% 28.66% 23.71%

Sam

[junebug007]

Here's the problem, Sam: You're a sportfisherman trying to play the role of a fisheries biologist. In short, you have no concept of what you're saying! For example, you've completely erred on the principle of survivorship by simply correlating it to fishing mortality (F), which, of course, ignores natural mortality (M), which is a HUGE component of the equation.

Further, you casually ignore the reality of basic menhaden fishery dynamics which is this: it takes a VERY small proportion of juveniles to reach sexual maturity in order for this population to propogate a vast and healthy population indefinitely! End of story.

Stop wasting my time. If you want to play fishery biologist, fine... go take some fish ecology 101 classes and then we'll talk. Until then, you should stick to the role of a sport fisherman and, if you like, criticize the system based on that pool of knowledge.

[Sam Whitefoot]

Junebug,

Actually I know a lot more about fisheries management and biology than you would imagine. I know the difference between fishing mortality, natural mortality and total mortality. I also know that the models are educated guesses at best which get better as you go back in the years when you run the models again. It is true that they are well educated guesses. However, they are only as good as the data and there is very little fisheries independent data (the best kind) for menhaden and almost no data for age 0 fish.

The natural mortality is extremely high for age 0 fish and makes up the largest percentage of the total mortality of that age class. I never said that the reduction industry harvests a large fraction of the standing stock of those fish. I just refuted your statement that very little of the harvest was age 0 and 1 fish.

However, the age 0 population used by the ASMFC technical committee is based on a constant natural mortality number. I find it hard to believe that it is that constant over a 50 year period. Some years had to have late cold winters, unfavorable wind conditions, an abundance of predator species or a lack of predator species. That is why I am saying that at least based on the VPA model no one really has a feel for the recruitment to age 0. Also I am not sure that they have enough data to say anything about the real recruitment from age 0 to age 1. What they can really talk about is the recruitment to late year 1 and age 2 when the primary harvesters start to take them in large numbers.

My point is that the stock removal due to fishing mortality is very large for age 2 and 3 fish. For these age classes this makes up a major part of the mortality. Take 1989 again for example. Using the data from the technical committee report they started out the season with 1550 million age 2 fish. They harvested 1158 million age 2 fish. The next year there were 320 million age 3 fish. That means that the number of fish that died of natural mortality was 1550-1158-320 million fish or 72 million fish. Put another way for that year the ratio of age 2 fish that where harvested as compared to those that died of natural causes 1158/72 or about 16:1. I wonder what would happen if harvest of that age class was reduced by 25% and twice as many fish were allowed to survive until they were 3 years old which is where the MAJORITY of the spawning stock comes from.

I understand that a lot of fish will naturally die at age 0 and probably age 1 and that the reduction industry does not play a major roll in the total mortality for those two age classes. There may be an issue at the edge of 1/2 when they harvest the fish moving down the coast between VA and NC late in the fall. But on the age 2 and above fish the industry does play a major roll in the total mortality and thus the population dynamics.

Sam

[capt.george]

---I WILL ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN, how does this Solve The Immediate Problem, of the lack large bait in the Mid & Upper bay

Both Sam & Junebug & others seem to know All the ingredients of how to make a good fish chowder recipie---
Why not put alll this Knowledge to work for a Spring plan For 2006--

------A plan that could make ALL user groups PROUD ----ASMFC, could be doing thier thing, The VA. Assembly could continue to sit on thier hands, & plan the roads for NO. VA. ----The OMEGA CEO'S & The Blue Collar worker in Reedville, Could feel involved , the Sport & Charter fisherman From the Capes TO the Conowinngo dam Could feel involved --WHY-Why--Why---I don't care about past fishing reports, or Studies that take 5 years to acclumate & another year to publish, Reports that depend on the accuracy of a fishery that is under the gun----Even Warriors meet to save men----Let Fishermen meet to save fish----Hoping to see my lines rattle again, in my lifetime ---Make IT Happen-----[smile]

[Dae]

I don't know what products are supported by Omega's menhaden, but I believe Junebug is right about one thing. That is that the fishery belongs to everyone in America.

I say limit Omega's catch to 50,000mt and let Omega charge more for their product. It's the same as crude oil from the Gulf. That way Omega still makes the same income (Maybe insane amounts like the oil majors), saves money on fuel/maintance for their boats and related equipment, the jobs are saved, America still has access to Omega's products, Menhaden still filter the bay, Stripers and other predator fish have more food, and so on.

The only "catch" is that Americans will just need to pay a little more for products that use Omega's menhaden. It's not a big deal since you have millions of us here to split the extra cost. Big deal if we pay an extra nickle or dime for a pound of chicken or pork, or someone pays an extra fifty cents for a tube of skin cream, dog/cat food or whatever that they purchase once/twice a month.

My feeling is that for Omega, this comes down to one thing and that is $$$ for themselves. They worry that if they don't produce enough product for their customers at the lowest possible cost, they will lose them to other companies. It's a worry with any business, but to risk depleting the bay of one of the most important species is not right for the American people. Nor will it help Omega in the long run.

Suggestions that science doesn't show a problem is not a reason to get, while the getting is good.

I wish for Omega to prosper, but please don't do it on the backs of others in the bay area with the claim that the resource belongs to all of America. It doesn't affect America like it will the people of the bay area. I don't think America, at large, will notice a difference if Omega stopped their Reedville operation all together. Americans are a resourceful people and will find other sources or a replacement product if need be.

Dang, I could ramble on forever on this but I'm not very good at putting what I think into words so better got off my soap box now

BTW, what I posted has no science behind it and it's only my feelings/opinions on this issue. I could be completly wrong on why Omega wants to fish the bay on their terms or if the cost of chicken and other products might only rise slightly. Shoot, if Omega stopped all together, I might be the one crying because KFC and Popeyes starts charging double.


- Dae

[junebug007]

Sam-

I'm not even going to bother with continuing to correct your misinformed statements. I'll simply leave you with this rhetorical question, since you want to play the role of fisheries biologist: Did the ASMFC Menhaden Technical Committee propose and/or support the recommendations contained in Addendum II? With this answer in hand (it's "no" by the way), you are welcome to second guess these PhD-level biologists until you're blue in the face. When you're done teaching these biologists how count fish better, I hope you encourage them to come on your boat in the near future so that they, in turn, can teach you how to catch fish better. Good luck!

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:
According to scientists, exactly ONE stock of Atlantic menhaden exists. The term "Atlantic" menhaden simply refers to the name of the species. No Bay or other substock exists, so the concept of LD is moot.

By that logic, if the coastwide rockfish population is healthy, there should be no restrictions on rockfishing in the Bay. But the member states of the ASFMC know the primary role of the Bay in the lifecycle of the striped bass and regulate it as such. The primary food source of striped bass in the bay are menhaden therefore the ASFMC should have equal right to protect the coastal state's striped bass by protecting its food source within bay waters.

[Marcus]

Not trying to step on any toes but can anyone answer this question:
Since VA is the mouth of the Chesapeake do they(or their businesses) bear any responsibility for the large menhaden that are not coming into Maryland waters anymore?

[Sea Gristle]

I'd think so. In the same way that you can't dam up a stream up river, robbing those downstream of the use of that water, I would think MD could make a very strong argument that Omega is robbing MD fisherman of the benefits of a healthy menhaden population.

[Sea Gristle]

Junebug - I appreciate your knowledge of the subject, OK? I like a spirited debate, many of us are here to learn, but your attempts to belittle other participants with LOL! and condescension will do little to convert anyone to your side of the argument. Take the edge off it please.

Or go find a marine biologist website and argue with them.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
By that logic, if the coastwide rockfish population is healthy, there should be no restrictions on rockfishing in the Bay. But the member states of the ASFMC know the primary role of the Bay in the lifecycle of the striped bass and regulate it as such. The primary food source of striped bass in the bay are menhaden therefore the ASFMC should have equal right to protect the coastal state's striped bass by protecting its food source within bay waters.
Wrong again. Striped bass have several discrete substocks, unlike menhaden.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
Junebug - I appreciate your knowledge of the subject, OK? I like a spirited debate, many of us are here to learn, but your attempts to belittle other participants with LOL! and condescension will do little to convert anyone to your side of the argument. Take the edge off it please.

Or go find a marine biologist website and argue with them.

Sorry you feel that correcting mistatements and stating the obvious truth is a form of belittlement. Get over it. When folks stop the irrational calls for eliminating menhaden fishing from the Bay, then I'll gladly take the edge off, partner.

[Sea Gristle]

So rockfish substocks are managed individually?

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
So rockfish substocks are managed individually?

Yes.

[Sea Gristle]

See I'm learning something new. How are they regulated differently and which ones am I catching within the bay?

[junebug007]

http://www.asmfc.org/strippedBass.htm

[Sam Whitefoot]

Actually most striped bass are just like menhaden in one respect. They both grow up in the estuaries and migrate in and out of the ocean when they mature. The difference is that striped bass return to the bays to lay eggs while menhaden lay eggs in the coastal waters and the larva drift/swim back into the bay. Virginia and Maryland recreational and commercial fishermen are limited to their harvest of striped bass so that an adequate amount of the fish join the coastal stocks.

As far as the Atlantic stocks of striped bass are concerned 85% are born in the Chesapeake Bay most of those join the other 15% in the coastal stocks when they reach 28 inches. The coastal stock is considered a mixed stock. The only stocks which is considered a separate stock is the Albemarle Sound fish which do not mix with the Atlantic coastal stocks. The triggers and spawning stock biomass for the striped bass coastal fishery are based on the coastal stocks. However, the bay fishery quota is based on the exploitable stock biomass within the Chesapeake Bay. That is almost exclusively 18 to 28 inch fish.

The Chesapeake Bay fish are treated separately so that we can insure that enough fish migrate into the coastal stocks for both spawning stocks and so that everyone, both commercial and recreational, up and down the coast has an adequate fishery.

By the way Junebug, answer this question: Does or does not the commercial fleet harvest 30% to 50% of the standing stock of 2 and 3 year old fish every year?

Also, why is status quo within the bay such a problem for industry?

I am not asking why they object to how ASMFC came to that point. You and Omega have already told us that. I am asking why they can not live with status quo within the bay for a while the science catches up, especially since their product is worth more now with the Omega-3 oils capabilities of their new processing plant? Don't forget that they can always go outside of the bay and harvest some more if they need to.

Sam

[junebug007]

Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
By the way Junebug, answer this question: Does or does not the commercial fleet harvest 30% to 50% of the standing stock of 2 and 3 year old fish every year?

Also, why is status quo within the bay such a problem for industry?

Yep, based on the best available science, the menhaden processing fleet appears to harvest roughly 38% of the age-2 and age-3 stock on average (1993-2002). Of course, the percentage of forage-sized menhaden population that they harvest is miniscule.

As for the "status quo" purportedly offered by Addendum II, the problem is, of course, is that it doesn't offer status quo at all. When it comes to menhaden harvests, they can vary significantly from year to year. In the end, the extremes define the mean. Unfortunately, by eliminating the possiblity of bumper season harvests, the Addendum would have the net effect of REDUCING average harvests over time. That is not status quo at all.

[scotty80]

Junebug,

Question, You state In reality, the majority of fish serving as forage to predators are age-0 menhaden and, to a significantly lesser degree, age-1 menhaden. Conversely, 90%+ of the fish within the Bay harvested by Omega are age-2+ fish. All totaled, scientists estimate that for every 1 forage-sized fish harvested by Omega, 1,200 are consumed by predators or die, to a lesser degree, of other natural causes.
Could you provide the source of this info ?

Thanks,

[junebug007]

Stock Assessment Report No. 04-01 (Supplement) of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Report for Peer Review, February 2004; and 2004 NMFS Harvest Statistics.

[Sam Whitefoot]

Junebug,

Could you be more specific on the 04-01 report? A page or section. Of all of the tables and graphs none have specifics on the Chesapeake Bay harvest at age. All they had was the data for harvest at age coast wide where 48% (number of fish) was age 0 and 1 in 2002.

Also do you have a web link or a more detailed title and author for the NMFS harvest statistics data so that others can access it?

Sam

[capt.george]

---Conversely, 90%+ of the fish within the Bay harvested by Omega are age-2+ fish.

---Junebug-- In all due respect ---That is what Maryland's portion of the Bay lacks----{--Are age-2+ fish --}--The kind that rattle the lines & form beautiful sights of large schools on the surface gleaming in the sun refelecting scales & fins--Exploding on the surface, when preadators, make thier final attack--Sights like these are just Memories, in this neck of the woods---I'm sure Virginians still see these sights & it's probably is hard to concieve , lack of these fish anywhere else in the bay---OH WELL---[sad][sad]

[scotty80]

OK, my bad. Wrong question to ask. First, I'm not a marine biologist and I don't claim to understand the details of these studies. I do think I can make an educated decision based on the findings or outcome of these studies.

Junebug, You are obviously very knowledgeable on this issue. I have viewed this thread many times to try and understand the issue. FYI, you are the reason I have questioned this. So A more appropriate question might be, In layman's terms, do SB forage on age 2 + Menhaden ?

[junebug007]

scotty80 originally wrote:
So A more appropriate question might be, In layman's terms, do SB forage on age 2 + Menhaden ?

Age-2 menhaden do serve as forage to very large striped bass, but age-0 and age-1 serve as the principle forage to striped bass and other opportunistic predators.

[capt.george]

Age-2 menhaden do serve as forage to very large striped bass

------Age -2 +--feed VERY LARGE striped bass---

Also---25" + striped bass
" ---!4" + bluefish
" ----25" + seatrout
-------And yes these size fish could benifit as well---OH WELL---[sad][sad]

[scotty80]

Click, My light bulb just turned on. Did some more research and I think I see junebugs legal point now. No, I don't think you understand fully what power the ASMFC has or doesn't have. Read ACFCMA and ask yourself this question, "Has overfishing been identified within the Atlantic menhaden population?" It is at that point, my friend, that you will realize these circumstances are far different than those to which you refer.


I'm going to take a wild guess and say that ASMFC legally can't take action against VA unless 'overfishing has been identified' ? Menhaden overfishing hasn't been identified because it is a single coast wide species. Correct me if I'm wrong junebug.

What is ACFCMA ? Antiquated code ...?

Junebug, Omega proposed a voluntary cap @ 131K metric ton. Is this number based on anything ? or just what they thought was reasonable.

Thanks,

[Purdue1]

Ding Ding Ding Ding!!! And the Sec of Commerce won't shut the fishery down because of the same reasons.

[Sam Whitefoot]

buzz buzz buzz wrong answer which was based on Junebug's interpertation of a law without actually reading the law.

The federal law defines a fishery as:

(8) The term ''fishery'' means -
(A) one or more stocks of fish that can be treated as a unit
for purposes of conservation and management and that are
identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical,
commercial, recreational, or economic characteristics; or
(B) any fishing for such stocks.

The status of the stocks identified on the basis of the geographical area of the Chesapeake Bay does not have sufficient science to determine if they are OK or not. Lots of folks including the scientists at the local sanitation districts and at MD DNR feel that those local populations are not sufficient to meet the ecological needs.

Junebug and all of the other Omega reps are always happy to say that the stocks are healthy as determined by the technical committee. What they don't say is that the scientists ALWAYS say on a coast wide basis. The scientists on the technical committee have never said in a report that the stocks within the geograpical area of the Chesapeake Bay are in good shape. With a lack of hard science that there is or is not a problem on the stocks within the Chesapeake Bay ASMFC is probably justified in taking a cautious approach to management of the species within the geograpical area. They have taken such measures in the past without any real science. It was horseshoe crabs. Virginia did not do what they were told and was found out of compliance. At the time it was illegal to even possess a horseshoe crab on your boat even if you bought it from an out of state supplier.

Sam

[Purdue1]

I think Junebug has been clear about the "coastal stocks". In fact from what I can tell he won't even concede that there are local stocks. The law is fine, but the ASFMC has interpreted the stocks geographic region as coastwide not local. Of course, the new study by the ASMFC could change that.

Local sanitation officials? Are these the same guys in charge of municipal waste?

[capt.george]

------I don't know who reads these posts, as the LURKERS never get into the posting process, It seems that other than myself, Scotty, Whitefoot, Junebug & some others on occasion wish to give thier views--There is such a Vast amount of Technical information to be found here on this on going subject it is Mindboggling ---I am familiar with the Reported word & the Studies & the Legal aspects & to me its like a Death Row Prisoners fight for life----It drags on & on, TO me, my simple down to earth, See every day, so called posts or constructive input is like PIS$ing in the wind----The entire thing to me is over a 2 + Age Baitfish not reaching the waters of Maryland even to make a Small showing ----WHAT is it ALL ABOUT?

-----Omega--Protecting a Va. tradition --Protecting jobs in a Rural community & of course a Wall Steet listed Corp.--Is it wrong --NO

-----The Fishing community---Consisting of Associations - Sportfishing--Charter & some Watermen--Small groups of concerned individuals, fishermen & Laymen---Conservationsts--Preservetionts----Activeists----Some using this as a way to get new members & dues , or getting press ---IS it wrong---NO

----Then there are the "Mile A More Birds"----The members of Federal & State Fisheries that advocate the , Make a study, then another study to study why the first study is incorrect ---Based on MY previous years of studies ---Is this Wrong---NO

-----WHAT IS WRONG, Is in my Personal opinion is that NO ONE or MORE can Step Up to the plate & act as a Leader to this problem--Surely there is a IMMEDIATE answer W/O waiting 5 or 6 years or longer -----OH WELL----[angel]

[Matt]

before we can solve a problem we have to admit there's a problem

[capt.george]

Conversely, 90%+ of the fish within the Bay harvested by Omega are age-2+ fish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------IS THIS NOT a tiny weeny bit of a problem---My Problem Is & I'm shouting it from the roof tops of every home in Maryland ---
------We need some --Age -2 + Baitfish ------

----I wish some one would write it on all the mirrors in the Omega's --Desision Makers rest room-----With stocks that are plummiting every day a Olive Branch couldn't hurt ----

[scotty80]

I'm still interested in how Omega came up with it's voluntary proposed cap @ 131K metric ton. Is this number based on anything ? or just what they thought was reasonable.

[Sea Gristle]

scotty80 originally wrote:
I'm still interested in how Omega came up with it's voluntary proposed cap @ 131K metric ton.



you might get a chance to find out. HB 1045 (Wittman) uses that exact number, even though it means that the second it would pass, VA would technically be out of compliance with the ASFMC cap and could close the whole menhaden fishery and drag the crabbers down with it.

Lots of menhaden bills this session in the House & senate hoppers: SB 252 (Cosgrove) SB 84 (Watkins) HB 749 ( Cosgrove) HB 1045 (Omeg...uh, Wittman)

At least it appears some legislators are trying to keep VA from going out of compliance and potentially closing the fishery. But they are also rescinding the power they gave the governor last session (hmm... i wonder why) and STILL won't give VMRC the authority to manage bunkers!

It should be a very interesting session
[excited]

[stanleybros]

Sea, correct me if I am wrong but didn't the bill that stripped the Gov. of his powers concerning menhaden in part wanted the regulatory authority given to the VMRC? The Governor cannot have the same authority as he has now if the VMRC gains control over the fishery.

[Sea Gristle]

HB 252 Regulation of the fishing of menhaden.
John A. Cosgrove (all patrons) Â*Â*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary as introduced:
Regulation of the fishing of menhaden.Â* Directs the Virginia Marine Resources Commission to adopt regulations to implement the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. The bill stipulates that no regulation can impose limits on the fishing of menhaden that are more restrictive than the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. The bill also requires that any moratorium on the fishery be subject to legislative review and repeals the Governor’s authority to implement menhaden management measures by proclamation.

SB- I suppose it's how you read it. I read it telling VMRC to adopt the ASMFC regs, but then it says ANY moratorium is subject the Legislative review. Do they have to do that for any other species? Who said anything about a moratorium? Is a cap a moratorium?

mor•a•to•ri•um
1) A period of time in which there is a suspension of a specific activity until future events warrant a removal of the suspension or issues regarding the activity have been resolved.

2) Such action may be imposed by a government, or taken voluntarily by a private business, usually in times of economic crisis such as an earthquake or flood, in order to provide people with time to stabilize their finances before dealing with potential problems such as a mortgage default and foreclosure.

I'm also concerned with the lack of specificity in "more restrictive than the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden." I would feel a lot better if it referred to the cap directly.

[Catch This]

The Chesapeake subcommitte will be taking up the menhaden issue Thurs 1/26/06 at 5:00pm in the General Assembly building 4 west. This is going to be interesting when you consider there are 3 bills. The Menhaden Matter Coalition is backing HB 749.

[wag23455]

DISCLAIMER – I am not a fisheries biologist, therefore my opinions are largely based on what I have read, experienced, and believe on a personal basis. However, many of the items I have read and take interest in (over the past 25 years) are probably the hub of the average fisheries biologist. On a side note, I was accepted into the marine biology program at U of Miami in 1990, however I never fully realized my degree in that field, nor received my B.S. degree from that institution. I have had the opportunity to be on the front lines of fisheries data collection through participation in the MRFSS and LPIS studies (which don’t have much bearing in this debate). With that said, I could say with a high degree of accuracy that I (along w/ other posting members) are probably above average in the education department and worthy of posting their non-scientifically proven opinions.

Everything in this world cannot be tangibly, scientifically proven yet large numbers of people believe in them. Examples - People are religious yet no scientific proof is available for the presence of a supreme being. Einstein proposed wormholes (e.g. Einstein-Rosen bridges), but no tangible proof exists for their being. There are tons of other examples – conservation & natural resource management – among them. In the void of scientific proof lies the realm of abstract reasoning.

There has been eluding to hypoxic areas as being a possible cause for localized depletion of menhaden in MD. Since we already know point source pollution is a major contributor to nitrogen introduction into the CB, we also know that measures to control point source pollution and the resultant nitrogen (and phosphorous) have to be two-fold (land and sea). What current methods are being used to control water-based nitrogen (i.e. removal of it from the water column) – be it artificial or natural means? Could the reasonable person construe that filter feeders (e.g. menhaden) represent an asset capable of localized nitrogen control – albeit a temporary sink as you say? On the flip side, is the CB simply experiencing a sense of eutrophication, to which no measures (natural or man-made) can prevent its eventual demise?

Junebug stated, “the Addendum would have the net effect of REDUCING average harvests over time. That is not status quo at all.� One could postulate that by capping harvested biomass, that more biomass would be left unharvested and therefore available as part of the potential harvestable biomass the next season. What scientific logic did Omega use in arbitrarily selecting their proposed cap, which is significantly higher than the average of the past decade? I would like to know what the mean harvested average is for Omega since it began keeping records of such. Does this mean average closely correlate to Omega’s proposed cap? Junebug - What would you deem a logical basis in developing an industry cap?

The old saying, “Believe none of what you read and half of what you see,� comes to mind whenever the topic of caps comes up. Personally, I think the premise of Occam’s Razor would hold that a purse seining boat capable of capturing millions of menhaden in single swipe is more capable of causing localized depletion vs. a largely transient (coupled with a smaller resident) population of striped bass. There are a host of factors beside the mechanical capability of Omega’s reduction fleet and the population of striped bass as it relates to the menhaden population.

Let’s throw this out there as food for thought… Which is more (scientifically proven): (1) Omega’s annual harvest within the CB or (2) the total consumption of menhaden by striped bass within the CB?

Personally, I think a cap lower than that offered by Omega is a prudent management tool. As someone previously stated, Omega can always charge the end-user consumer more for products to make up a difference that they would have otherwise seen by harvesting more biomass. Simply economics people...

Some interesting reading, albeit a bit dated:
chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/LRSC_03-03-05_Presentation_2_5936.pdf

[scotty80]

wag23455 originally wrote:
What scientific logic did Omega use in arbitrarily selecting their proposed cap, which is significantly higher than the average of the past decade?
Junebug - What would you deem a logical basis in developing an industry cap?



My thoughts also. I think it was an attempt to keep ASMFC from setting a precedence. VA has it's head stuck in the sand. Doesn't want any outside regulation.
I think JB is on vaca. [shy]

[Sea Gristle]

scotty80 originally wrote:
I think JB is on vaca. [shy]


Nah. I thinks he's off the clock now[grin]

[Purdue1]

From the Rappahannock Record

Legislators don't bite on menhaden cap
by Reid Armstrong

RICHMOND-Virginia legislators laced up their boxing gloves last Thursday, preparing for a fight in federal court that is inevitable, according to Del. Rob Wittman.

Before a standing-room only crowd, a House subcommittee tabled a bill that would have adopted a cap on the harvest of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.

Omega Protein, the only company threatened by the proposed cap, applauded the subcommittee's decision. Omega's processing of the little bony fish, prized for its healthy oil, has made Reedville the second largest fishing port in the nation.

The cap was mandated last August by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, a voluntary organization of 15 eastern states working together to manage migratory fisheries.

Large-scale efforts by Greenpeace and several other environmental organizations rallied public support for the cap. During a six-month public comment period prior to the ASMFC decision, nearly 26,000 people supported a cap or moratorium on the fishery; and of the 15 states and three agencies that make up the ASMFC menhaden management board, only Virginia and North Carolina opposed the cap.

Virginia representatives argued at the time that the movement to cap the harvest was based on emotions over the health of the environment and the abundance of other fish stock and not on the best available science regarding menhaden.

Few studies have been conducted to determine the specific health of the menhaden population in the Chesapeake Bay, but coast-wide assessments show the population is healthy. Even the ASMFC's technical committee and scientists from along the Atlantic seaboard could not come to any conclusion or recommendation regarding the health of the bay's menhaden stock.

Omega representatives have repeatedly accused the ASMFC of overstepping the bounds of its charter by adopting the cap on menhaden without the supporting science.

The majority of the 10-member subcommittee last Thursday seemed to find the argument compelling enough to risk a fight. Because they chose to table Del. John Cosgrove's bill, which would have made the ASMFC cap enforceable under state law, the Commonwealth now faces legal action from the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

The entire ASMFC Â* not just the menhaden management board Â* must first vote to find Omega out of compliance.

Then, if the Secretary of Commerce finds the state at fault, he has the authority to impose a moratorium on the entire fishery. But the industry is relying on history to save it from that threat. In three prior cases, the Secretary has heard from both sides and made a decision without shutting down the fishery.

"I am concerned that we are playing chicken with the feds," Del. Cosgrove said.

Del. Wittman reasoned that a fight was coming either way. If the legislature adopted the limit, Omega would sue. If it didn't adopt the limit, the ASMFC would sue. Either way, he said, Virginia was bound to end up in federal court debating this cap with the Secretary of Commerce. The most direct path, therefore, was take no action and let the Secretary hear both sides of the arguement.

Omega is hoping the Secretary will agree that the ASMFC decision to cap the harvest was based on politics rather than science.

In the worst-case scenario, if the Secretary of Commerce imposes a moratorium while the legislature is out of session, the governor can enact the necessary regulations to lift it.

The science should come first, then the regulation, Del. Wittman said following his winning motion to table the bill.

The ASMFC already has federal dollars in hand to begin a two-year study on the health of menhaden population in the Chesapeake Bay, noted Jack Travelstead of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

Del. Wittman said he does not believe that the fishery, if it is in danger at all, will collapse between now and the time the studies are complete. If stricter regulations are proven to be necessary, they can be put into place at that time. If any harm is done in the meantime, he said, it can quickly be repaired by new populations constantly feeding into the bay from the ocean.

Del. Wittman said he and the other members of the Chesapeake subcommittee of the House committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources who voted to table the bill felt uncomfortable setting a specific cap based on numbers they haven't personally seen.

Omega's annual catch, recorded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, is confidential information. The ASMFC cap is meant to be based on a five-year average of Omega's catch, since it is the only reduction fishery in the bay. The 105,000-metric-ton cap that Del. Cosgrove's bill recommended may not be accurate, Del. Wittman said, and even the ASMFC's addendum does not address a specific number.

Omega was obviously pleased with the subcommittee's action.

"The General Assembly has spoken through the mouth of the subcommittee, saying it's not willing to support fisheries management based on politics rather than sound science," said Omega spokesman Toby Gascon.

Prior to the start of the meeting, Del. Wittman withdrew a bill to set a 131,000 metric-ton-cap. He didn't want to confuse the issue, he said.

Following the vote to table his first bill, Del. Cosgrove requested that the subcommittee table his accompanying bill giving the VMRC authority to adopt ASMFC mandates.

A companion bill to limit harvests, sponsored by Sen. John Watkins of Midlothian, is in a subcommittee of the Senate committee on Chesapeake, Agriculture and Natural Resources, but Gascon expects it too will be shot down before reaching the Senate floor.

[Tom Powers]

I can not say that Virginia is going to be end up with a moratorium or not. However the following statement is misleading.

"In the worst-case scenario, if the Secretary of Commerce imposes a moratorium while the legislature is out of session, the governor can enact the necessary regulations to lift it."

In state code that power can only be invoked between the end of the legislative session and 30 days prior to the opening of the purse seine fishery for reduction purposes. That is basically between March 3 and March 30. If a moratorium is invoked outside of that timeframe I would think that they would have to bring the legislature back into session to enact the code changes (al la New Jersey and striped bass last year).

Tom

[Sea Gristle]

A FISH CALLED MENHADEN

The Washington Post, Sunday, February 5, 2006; Page B06

VIRGINIA LAWMAKERS love paying lip service to the vital importance of the Chesapeake Bay's ecology. But when the bay's health collides with the commercial interests of a single fishery plant, guess what? The bay comes out the loser. That's what's happening in the General Assembly, where legislators in thrall to the fishery industry have rejected a modest step to safeguard the already imperiled waters of the Chesapeake.

The issue involves menhaden, an oily, bony relative of herring found in the coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Unimposing in stature and unlovely to eat, menhaden does have its uses: It is converted into fish oil and fertilizer and also used for bait. In the bay, it also plays a vital environmental role, both by providing a source of food for striped bass, bluefish and gray trout and by consuming and filtering out nutrients. That's why tentative signs of depletion in the bay's menhaden population have raised concerns.

In a measured response to those concerns, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, a 15-state coordinating body, has recommended imposing a five-year cap on the menhaden catch in the bay's Virginia waters (Maryland forbids menhaden fishing). The idea is to use the five years to study the extent and causes of possible menhaden depletion in the bay. That has prompted howls from Omega Protein Inc., the company that fishes menhaden from the Chesapeake and renders it for oil and other products at a plant in Virginia's Northern Neck, one of the nation's largest fish processors.

The cap of 105,783 metric tons a year is not exactly drastic; that's Omega's average catch of menhaden from the Chesapeake for the first five years of this decade. Moreover, the menhaden catch has been steadily declining for years. The cap, which is actually greater than Omega's catch in several recent years, would impose little hardship.

That hasn't stopped the pushback from Omega's lobbyists. They acknowledge that the menhaden catch from the bay has dipped, but they insist on Omega's right to try to keep fishing, while warning that that jobs at the Virginia plant are in jeopardy. Omega contends that the commission's recommendation is arbitrary and scientifically unfounded; that it's unfair since it does not apply to the (much smaller) bait industry; and that it was formulated using improper procedures. Backed by a friendly opinion by Virginia Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R), Omega has managed to kill legislation to impose the commission-recommended limit in Virginia's House of Delegates.

The commission has been in business for more than 60 years, and its decisions on limiting fishing have frequently annoyed member states that sense a threat to their narrow interests. In this case, Omega's grousing is to be expected; it dislikes the precedent that a cap would represent. But the fact remains that the cap would impose little burden while ensuring that no further harm is done if indeed the bay's menhaden population is declining. If Virginia's legislature refuses to act, then Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) should impose the cap on his own authority. Failing that, Omega should be warned that it courts disaster if it continues to resist: By law the Commerce Department may step in and impose a moratorium on states that refuse to comply with the commission's recommendations. That would reduce Omega's future menhaden catch in the bay to zero.

©Â*2006Â*The Washington Post Company

Â*
Â*