MD Scientists: Harvests Not Stressing Menhaden Populations

[junebug007]

Chesapeake Bay Program Scientists Confirm Menhaden Harvests are Not Harming the Chesapeake Bay

In their Preview of the State of the Bay Restoration and Protection Efforts and State of Bay Health, Chesapeake Bay Program [CBP] scientists confirm that menhaden harvests are not harming the Chesapeake Bay. According to the CBP report, "The single hottest fisheries issue over the last year is the menhaden harvest. Our best science says harvest is not stressing the population. While some feel otherwise, that is the conclusion the data supports." The report also indicates that burgeoning striped bass populations may be overpopulating the Bay. According to the CBP report, "A strong argument can be made that we have too many small striped bass in the Bay and that is causing disease, starvation, and forage fish problems."

Excerpts from the CBP Report are available online:

http://www.menhaden.org/MONSC.pdf

[manfromva]

Hey Junebug,
Just wondering what numbers they were using. It could be very deceiving using metric tons. Here are a few numbers to look at that sound far worse than 100,000 metric tons.

Using a 100,000 metric tons
a metric ton is = to 2204.62 lbs
therefore that would equal 220,462,000 lbs caught in a year (less than the average of the last five)
minus the 1 % bycatch of 2,204,620 lbs (which sounds like a lot put that way)
equals 198,415,800 lbs left of pure menhaden
if each fish weighed 1.5 lbs that would equal
132,277,200 menhaden landed
at 1 lb of course it would be 198,415,800 menhaden landed
if each fish weighed .5 lbs that would equal 396,831,600 menhaden landed

Now if 70% comes out of the chesapeake bay as Omega says and they each weighed in a 1 lb(remember 198,415,800 menhaden)
then the total menhaden harvested in the bay would be
138,891,060.
That's just omega..not including predation, disease, and natural causes.
Sounds liike localized depletion to me.
when was the last time you saw that much bait in the bay

Now if we let omega set their quota at 131,000 metric tons
that equals 288,805,220 lbs
minus the 1% bycatch
2,888,052.2 lbs
leaving 285,917,167.8 lbs left
If the 70% still applied saying that they actually could catch that much in year and each fish weighed 1 lb
It would equal 200,142,017.46 menhaden landed.


Feel free to correct me if my numbers are in error. Remember also that the atlantic menhaden fishery only lands 25% of the total menhaden landings in the U.S. The gulf takes the other 75%

Name any other species that can survive that much pressure.

[Capt.Nick]

I feel much better now that we know the truth.!!!!!BTW Does their pay come from our taxes?

[goose70]

Yes. It's whatever the taxpayers pay to deal with that portion of reduced water quality caused by the large reduction in filter feeders, plus the lost tax revenue from the Chesapeake falling well short of it's sportfishing destination potential due to the lack of forage for sportfish.

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:
Our best science says harvest is not stressing the population.


The BAY population? What does the ASFMC say about CBP's "best available science"? I find it curious that ASFMC didn't take it into consideration when determining the need for a cap and further study of localized depletion. More likely that "best available" was "of questionable scientific value".

[Sea Gristle]

CBP - you mean those guys who work for our state government, appointed by those noble elected servants of the Commonwealth who don't give a rat$ a$$ about the bay and are politically beholden to a major contributor?

Oh yeah, that's some science I would have some faith in...

[scotty80]

JB, here is a little counter propaganda,

Virginia Assembly Rejects Menhaden Conservation Measures
January 27, 2006 PDF Print Version

Richmond, VA - In a stunning decision yesterday, the Chesapeake Subcommittee of the House of Delegates voted to reject a cap on the industrial harvest of menhaden from the Chesapeake Bay as mandated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). The measure, adopted last fall by the ASMFC, would have capped the effort of the menhaden fleet at an average of the last five year’s harvest while studies were conducted to determine if the commercial operations are causing localized depletion of the important forage fish.

“The decision by the Virginia state legislature sets up an unnecessary confrontation with the federal government and puts the continued operation of the entire menhaden industry at risk,” said John Bello, chairman of Coastal Conservation Association Virginia (CCA VA).

Under the Coastal Cooperative Act, the ASMFC has little choice but to certify the state of Virginia as out of compliance with its menhaden plan and proceed with a closure of the entire fishery. The potential closure would not take effect before July 1, but if it is instituted at that time, the Virginia legislature will be out of session and unable to prevent the shutdown of the fishery.

“It is disappointing that the industry and the subcommittee apparently were not concerned that their decision puts all the employees of the reduction industry and the bait fishery at risk. In our testimony before the subcommittee we stressed the consequences of rejecting this basic conservation measure,” said David Nobles, chairman of CCA Virginia’s Government Relations Committee. “It is frustrating that they chose to ignore the realities of the situation.”

CCA VA supports the harvest cap which was designed to allow the reduction industry to continue operations while scientists develop a clearer picture of the impact of the harvest on the health of the Bay’s ecosystem. Evidence has indicated that the intense harvest of menhaden in the Bay is creating a localized depletion of the primary forage fish for a host of species important to commercial and sport fishermen. The Chesapeake Bay is the spawning ground for at least 80 percent of all Atlantic striped bass and that species in particular has shown signs of malnutrition and disease that could be linked to insufficient numbers of menhaden.

“We have maintained since the beginning of this debate that the intent of the harvest cap was not to put the industry out of business,” said David Hickman, executive director of CCA VA. “The cap would have allowed them to catch almost 106,000 metric tons per year, which is the average of the last five year’s harvest. The industry felt it could not live even with that modest restriction. Now the legislature and the industry leadership have chosen a course of action that will either weaken fishery management by the ASMFC or result in the closure of the reduction fishery by the federal government. Neither of those options is good for the resource or for the citizens of Virginia.”

CCA will ask the ASMFC to initiate the process of enforcing the cap at the Commission’s meeting in February.

###

Coastal Conservation Association is a national organization of 90,000 members in 15 state chapters. CCA’s mission is to advise and educate the public on conservation of marine resources. The objective of CCA is to conserve, promote and enhance the present and future availability of these coastal resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public.

[manfromva]

hey junebug,
I really don't like to keep bugging you but here is another little tidbit of information.

But as filter feeders an adult menhaden 3 years and older can filter 4 gallons of water per minute or over 100 million gallons in 180 days. And that is just one menhaden

Now talk about localized pollution

so let me know if my math is right

if a omega takes 70% locally of their average 100,000 metric tons

minus their bycatch and each fish weighed 1.5 lbs
132,277,200 menhaden and let's they can each can filter 1920 gallons of water a day (I calculated an 8 hour day since they may have some child labor laws that won't let them filter for a full 24 hours)(8x60x4)
that would equal 254,171,124,000 gallons a day
(remember this is only one third of what they really can filter)

someone care to add up how much water just omega's share of menhaden can filter in 180 days....because even if they weren't caught they may not stay here due to migration

[Sea Gristle]

And how much that filtration would cost to replace by upgrading water treatment plants. And how much each taxpayer must pony up to pay for it.

Which, now that I think of it, is nothing. Didn't the VAGA decide not to fund the bay cleanup this session? [sad]

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
hey junebug,
I really don't like to keep bugging you but here is another little tidbit of information.

But as filter feeders an adult menhaden 3 years and older can filter 4 gallons of water per minute or over 100 million gallons in 180 days. And that is just one menhaden

Now talk about localized pollution

so let me know if my math is right

if a omega takes 70% locally of their average 100,000 metric tons

minus their bycatch and each fish weighed 1.5 lbs
132,277,200 menhaden and let's they can each can filter 1920 gallons of water a day (I calculated an 8 hour day since they may have some child labor laws that won't let them filter for a full 24 hours)(8x60x4)
that would equal 254,171,124,000 gallons a day
(remember this is only one third of what they really can filter)

someone care to add up how much water just omega's share of menhaden can filter in 180 days....because even if they weren't caught they may not stay here due to migration

Omega catches alot of fish... what's your point? Your posts ignore the fact that scientists estimate the total menhaden population at over 400 BILLION. Thus, commercial fishermen only remove approximately only 2 out of every 1,000 menhaden from their population. Need those extra 2 fish, as well, do you?

As for water filtration, yep, menhaden collectively 'filter' alot of water. Again, what's your point?

[Sea Gristle]

400 billion in the BAY? All at the same time?

[Sam Whitefoot]

Oh yes here we go again. 2 fish out of 1000

Here is the CALCULATED population distribution for 2004 as per the ASMFC technical committee report.

Age -- Billions of fish
0 -- 406.8
1 -- 2.51
2 -- 0.67
3 -- 0.36
4 -- 0.095
5 -- 0.014
6 -- 0.003

Those numbers are at the beginning of the year when those 406 Billion age 0 fish are about 1/2 inch long. Most of those get eaten before they reach 6 inches long and 3 onces in weight.

During that same year the commercial harvest of the standing stock at age was:

0 -- 0.04%
1 -- 8.43%
2 -- 38.8%
3 -- 37.7%
4 -- 18.0%
5 -- 3.57%

Furthermore the 406 Billion fish is back calculated in the model based on a constant annual natural mortality of about 98%. Also that year 22% of the fish harvested were age 0.

Thus the Menhaden industry harvested about 40% of the (edit AGE 2) fish before they had a chance to spawn and another 40% (Age 3) before they could spawn a second time. The industry does harvest a significant number of these fish. To state otherwise is just Junebug spinning the numbers the Omega way in order to downplay the impact. Those two year old fish if left to live another year would contribute in a major way to the spawning stock and help in filtering the water in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

Sam

[junebug007]

Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
Those numbers are at the beginning of the year when those 406 Billion age 0 fish are about 1/2 inch long. Most of those get eaten before they reach 6 inches long and 3 onces in weight.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

By the way, young-of-the-year menhaden reach nearly a half-foot by the end of summer, so your half-inch anecdote is misleading. As for the rest of your creative math 101 in your post, give me a break. It's simply a mess.

Again, I appreciate your efforts to convey the scientific fact to interested recreational fishermen that the vast majority of menhaden are, indeed, consumed by predators.

Much obliged!

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:
[Q]Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
I appreciate your efforts to convey the scientific fact to interested recreational fishermen that the vast majority of menhaden are, indeed, consumed by predators.


Or :
the vast majority of THE FEW menhaden THAT OMEGA DOESN'T CATCH are, indeed, consumed by predators.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
junebug007 originally wrote:
[Q]Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
I appreciate your efforts to convey the scientific fact to interested recreational fishermen that the vast majority of menhaden are, indeed, consumed by predators.


Or :
the vast majority of THE FEW menhaden THAT OMEGA DOESN'T CATCH are, indeed, consumed by predators.

Wrong.

Omega does not harvest (or target) age-0 menhaden in any substantial quantities. Age-0 and age-1 menhaden are the principle forage-size fish for predators (striped bass, principally). For every one forage-sized menhaden harvested by Omega, predators consume roughly 1,200.

[Sam Whitefoot]

From the ASMFC Fact sheet.

"One-year old menhaden are about six inches long and weigh two to three ounces, three year old menhaden are nine to ten inches long and weigh about 0.5 pound, and menhaden six years and older are about one foot long and weigh about one pound."

Thus your age zero fish don't reach 6 inches until the end of the year, not the middle as you claim. The baitfish that are caught in the middle of the summer are 2 to 3 inches long.

From the ASFMC stock assessment document, the table with the population numbers has the following as a heading:

"Table 7.3 Estimated numbers of Atlantic menhaden (in billions) at start of fishing year from forward-projecting statistical age-structured model"

The start of the fishing season for the snapper rigs is March. How big is an age 0 menhaden in March? That is where I came up with a 1/2 inch number. I don't know the exact growth rate but if it should be pretty linear during the first year and those fish would be 3 inches long in the summer and 6 inches long in December.

With respect to forage. Maybe an 18 inch striped bass will eat menhaden up to 6 inches or so. But those 26 to 50 inch fish will certainly eat a 9 inch (age 3) menhaden. Bluefish and trout will eat any size as they chop them up first.

With respect to math I corrected the wording in the last paragraph above.

Here are the numbers for the 2002 biomass and harvest at age from the ASMFC report in Billions of fish.

Age -- (spring Biomass) -- Harvest during the year
0 -- 406.8 -- 0.178
1 -- 2.51 -- 0.211
2 -- 0.67 -- 0.259
3 -- 0.36 -- 0.136
4 -- 0.095 -- 0.017
5 -- 0.014 -- 0.0005

The math to get the percentage of the standing stock harvested and the percentage of the harvest at age is pretty simple, unless you are trying to put the Omega spin on it. Did my spread sheet program add or divide something incorectly?

No matter how you stack it Omega harvest a reasonable fraction of age 1 and above fish. They harvest a substantial fraction of the age 2 and above fish. To boot most of that harvest is in Virginia's waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Many believe that the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem needs more of those age 2 and 3 menhaden swiming and filtering the water to be healthy.

Sam

[goose70]

If a 34" Rockfish will eat a spikey 11" Yellow Perch (fact), or a 38" Rockfish will eat a 15" Hickory Shad (another fact), then I'm confident that any Rockfish over 30" will gladly consume the largest Menhaden. In fact, that would be better for it than burning energy to chase down many small Menhaden.

[Topfish]

Hey June, KMA. Do not waste your time with this guy. He is a paid Omega spy. He is here to just agravate everyone if you let him. Just ignore him and maybe he will go away. Do not respond to his posts.

[junebug007]

Sam Whitefoot originally wrote:
From the ASMFC Fact sheet.

"One-year old menhaden are about six inches long and weigh two to three ounces, three year old menhaden are nine to ten inches long and weigh about 0.5 pound, and menhaden six years and older are about one foot long and weigh about one pound."

Thus your age zero fish don't reach 6 inches until the end of the year, not the middle as you claim. The baitfish that are caught in the middle of the summer are 2 to 3 inches long.

From the ASFMC stock assessment document, the table with the population numbers has the following as a heading:

"Table 7.3 Estimated numbers of Atlantic menhaden (in billions) at start of fishing year from forward-projecting statistical age-structured model"

The start of the fishing season for the snapper rigs is March. How big is an age 0 menhaden in March? That is where I came up with a 1/2 inch number. I don't know the exact growth rate but if it should be pretty linear during the first year and those fish would be 3 inches long in the summer and 6 inches long in December.

With respect to forage. Maybe an 18 inch striped bass will eat menhaden up to 6 inches or so. But those 26 to 50 inch fish will certainly eat a 9 inch (age 3) menhaden. Bluefish and trout will eat any size as they chop them up first.

With respect to math I corrected the wording in the last paragraph above.

Here are the numbers for the 2002 biomass and harvest at age from the ASMFC report in Billions of fish.

Age -- (spring Biomass) -- Harvest during the year
0 -- 406.8 -- 0.178
1 -- 2.51 -- 0.211
2 -- 0.67 -- 0.259
3 -- 0.36 -- 0.136
4 -- 0.095 -- 0.017
5 -- 0.014 -- 0.0005

The math to get the percentage of the standing stock harvested and the percentage of the harvest at age is pretty simple, unless you are trying to put the Omega spin on it. Did my spread sheet program add or divide something incorectly?

No matter how you stack it Omega harvest a reasonable fraction of age 1 and above fish. They harvest a substantial fraction of the age 2 and above fish. To boot most of that harvest is in Virginia's waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Many believe that the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem needs more of those age 2 and 3 menhaden swiming and filtering the water to be healthy.

Sam

You're wasting my time.

Your statistics are, once again, wrong.

For starters, regarding the size of an age-0 menhaden, consult Table 2.1 from the most recent stock assessment. It indicates that a mid-year newbie is around 134 mm in length (5.3"), so by the end of summer it is, indeed, about 6". This is, of course, common knowledge to anyone familiar with menhaden on the Bay.

Your statistics also reflect (incorrectly, I would add) old harvest data. Recent harvests have been 90-95% age-2 or greater.

As for predation by striped bass - the principle predator in the Bay currently - they must reach about age-5 before most are physically capable of consuming an age-2 menhaden. According to the most recent striped bass assessment, over 82% of the striper population is age-4 or less. Furthermore, as you should know, the larger striped bass are migratory and only stay in the Bay for relatively short time periods. During their Spring migration into the tidal flat areas of Maryland, their principle prey isn't even menhaden.

Lastly, you bring up the "filtering" issue. You're chasing the proverbial red herring again. Kindly provide reference to any scientific studies that indicate more populations of large menhaden are needed in the Bay (and no, MSSA anti-Omega diatribes don't count).

[Four Js]

You know funny thing about all this, things like toooo many rockfish as Mr june has suggested......................... I have to wonder how in the world did the menhaden and rockfish survive BEFORE we rec and omega started fishing for them. June I boat out of Deltaville and have seen first hand three and four of your steamers working the Rapp river from the mouth to the Whitestone bridge. Omega has big talk about the 200 jobs in Reedville but seems to have feelings about the many Charters that fish the river and make their liveing there. I have seen them drop nets right on top of the charters. I have to wonder if Omega is leading by example ie WE will get ours and to he!! with the rest. June be assured the I will be out this year and I have added a new peice of equiptment to my boat............a video camera. Maybe if we as rec anglers get a lot of video and get it to the right news people the rest of the state will become aware of whats really going on.

[junebug007]

Four Js originally wrote:
You know funny thing about all this, things like toooo many rockfish as Mr june has suggested......................... I have to wonder how in the world did the menhaden and rockfish survive BEFORE we rec and omega started fishing for them. June I boat out of Deltaville and have seen first hand three and four of your steamers working the Rapp river from the mouth to the Whitestone bridge. Omega has big talk about the 200 jobs in Reedville but seems to have feelings about the many Charters that fish the river and make their liveing there. I have seen them drop nets right on top of the charters. I have to wonder if Omega is leading by example ie WE will get ours and to he!! with the rest. June be assured the I will be out this year and I have added a new peice of equiptment to my boat............a video camera. Maybe if we as rec anglers get a lot of video and get it to the right news people the rest of the state will become aware of whats really going on.

So, the sportfishing for charters on the Rappahannock has been bad, huh?

[Four Js]

Well June why dont ya stop down that way and ask them about the time yalls steamers dropped nets on them at the rockpile this past year. I am not going to debate it with you thers no piont in it. Fact is as more and more people become aware of Omegas opperation your going to get more and more resistance.

[Sam Whitefoot]

I stand corrected on the growth rate. I guess it is non-linear during that first year. That still does not change the fact that the 400 billion age 0 fish was counted in the early spring when they were on the order of 1/2 inch long.

The distribution of harvest numbers that was given to me indirectly from NOAA was:


2004 Coastwide (preliminary)
age 0 1%
age 1 14%
age 2 72%
age 3+ 12%

2003 Coastwide
age 0 9%
age 1 18%
age 2 64%
age 3+ 9%

Here are the percentages for previous years (From the ASMFC report).


Year -- Age 0 -- Age 1 -- Age 2 -- Age 3-plus
1990 14.28% 6.15% 71.97% 7.60%
1991 27.85% 32.65% 29.88% 9.63%
1992 19.47% 35.43% 38.75% 6.34%
1993 4.26% 23.78% 61.68% 10.29%
1994 5.94% 18.40% 59.58% 16.09%
1995 3.46% 32.48% 40.88% 23.18%
1996 3.09% 19.15% 62.19% 15.57%
1997 2.53% 24.79% 42.63% 30.05%
1998 7.23% 18.36% 53.66% 20.75%
1999 18.36% 28.51% 42.68% 10.45%
2000 11.83% 17.37% 51.80% 19.00%
2001 3.44% 6.50% 55.22% 34.85%
2002 22.19% 26.36% 32.35% 19.10%

So it looks like the industry did good at catching a high percentage (>80%)of older fish in 2001, and 1996 and caught a higher precentage (>30%) of age 0-1 fish in 2002, 1999, 1995, 1992 and 1991. On average over the 14 year period between 1991 and 2004 67% of the harvest was age 2 and older and 33% was age 0 and 1.

In 2004 -- 87% of the coast wide harvest was before the end of the 2nd year which in accordance with the ASMFC menhaden fact sheet is prior to when the majority of those fish have a chance to spawn. During the 1991 through 2004 time period pre spawn (not completed they end of year 2) fish made up 83% of the harvest. That is a lot of prespawn fish.


I wonder what the population estimates were for 2004 and how many age 2 fish you left to spawn that year. And folks wonder why there is poor recruitment. If Omega was trying to help recruitment they would not be targeting the prespawn fish.

As far as striped bass are concerned. There are plenty of other predators in the bay. Flounder, bluefish, grey trout, red drum, blue crabs, herons, seagulls, osperys, to name a few. It will be interesting to see the analysis from the studies as to which species eats more or what. Also not all striped bass leave the bay at age 7 (28 inches) a certain fraction stays year round. Also those age 5 through 7 make up 20% of the coast wide popluation most of those age classes stay in the bay. Depending on the year class a good percentage of that 80% of the age 5 and less striped bass you are quoting are age 0/1 fish which do not eat those 3" to 6" inch menhaden. For instance in 2004 38% of the striped bass were age 1 fish.

Sam

[manfromva]

Hey Junebug,
I had no idea that there were so many menhaden. I guess all of omega's conservation efforts have paid off since the early 80's. They use to catch 300,000 to 400,000 metric tons a year. I'm glad to see that they are limiting themselves to just over a 100,000 now.
With those numbers you gave in the Billions
You should help omega out and let them know where they are. Heck I might even quit my job and go cast netting for them like the old timers use to since there are so many.

As for the pollution factor...I guess the low oxygen levels and large algae blooms have been figments of everyone's imaginations.

[junebug007]

.

[junebug007]

.

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
Hey Junebug,
I had no idea that there were so many menhaden. I guess all of omega's conservation efforts have paid off since the early 80's.

Agreed. Omega harvests 2 out of every 1,000 menhaden in the total population annually.

They use to catch 300,000 to 400,000 metric tons a year. I'm glad to see that they are limiting themselves to just over a 100,000 now.

Wrong. Omega (actually under it's former name Zapata Protein) never harvested anything close to that amount. Moreover, you're referring to a time when striped bass stocks were depleted, and menhaden vessels numbered in the 30-40 range, not less than a dozen.

With those numbers you gave in the Billions
You should help omega out and let them know where they are. Heck I might even quit my job and go cast netting for them like the old timers use to since there are so many.

The juvenile survey in Virginia in 2005 produced roughly 20x the previous 5 year average, so you should, indeed, have success cast netting.

As for the pollution factor...I guess the low oxygen levels and large algae blooms have been figments of everyone's imaginations.

Perhaps your own imagination. See my post from this morning on the main Chesapeake board.

[manfromva]

junebug,
your graph of oxygen levels shows exactly what everyone is saying. That omega is not allowing the menhaden to migrate north of the VA/MD line. To do their job. Remember menhaden are born in the ocean and have migrate north into the estruaries of the bay. Thanks for the graph.

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
junebug,
your graph of oxygen levels shows exactly what everyone is saying. That omega is not allowing the menhaden to migrate north of the VA/MD line. To do their job. Remember menhaden are born in the ocean and have migrate north into the estruaries of the bay. Thanks for the graph.

You lost me. What is their 'job'?

[goose70]

Junebug, don't Menhaden stay primarily near the surface? Or, at the very least, can't they easily cope with doing so if DO levels go down? If so, then I don't see how the dead zones would stop Menhaden from swimming north. In fact, Menhaden have regularly swam into even very bad dead zones that extended to the surface in some areas, as was evidenced by massive Menhaden die-offs in the 80s and even moderate one last Summer.

These dead zones are obviously a huge problem, but I do not think they are the reason for the lack of Menhaden in the Bay. Dead zones can kill Menhaden, but where is your evidence that the Menhaden come up the Bay in reduced numbers due to dead zones (or is this not your contention)? I believe that something else (i.e. - Omega) is keeping the Menhaden from coming up the Bay in historical numbers (by historical, I mean only 15-25 years ago).

Another point: You regularly blame increased Striped Bass stocks as causing Menhaden depletion in the Bay, yet have not, to my knowledge, reconciled this with (1) the huge stocks of mostly larger Striped Bass that patrol coastal waters, where the Menhaden stocks are supposedly healthy and (2) the fact that Bluefish were at record levels and Weakfish were much more numerous when the Striped Bass population was down in the 80s. Are you saying that these massive schools of chopper Blues didn't do AT LEAST as big a number on Menhaden as Striped Bass do today?

I think we all agree that increased populations of predators put increased strain on forage, and declining water quality further strains the entire ecosystem --the latter is a situation that MD, VA, PA and NY -- and every citizen thereof -- need to more seriously address, otherwise the Omega debate will soon be moot. However, that does not mean that, knowing all of the other stress factors on the Bay population, it is wise policy to say, “oh well, since there are many issues at play, let's just continue to allow 100,000 tons of critical forage to be removed from an already strained Bay forage base.”

[junebug007]

goose70 originally wrote:
Junebug, don't Menhaden stay primarily near the surface? Or, at the very least, can't they easily cope with doing so if DO levels go down? If so, then I don't see how the dead zones would stop Menhaden from swimming north. In fact, Menhaden have regularly swam into even very bad dead zones that extended to the surface in some areas, as was evidenced by massive Menhaden die-offs in the 80s and even moderate one last Summer.

These dead zones are obviously a huge problem, but I do not think they are the reason for the lack of Menhaden in the Bay. Dead zones can kill Menhaden, but where is your evidence that the Menhaden come up the Bay in reduced numbers due to dead zones (or is this not your contention)? I believe that something else (i.e. - Omega) is keeping the Menhaden from coming up the Bay in historical numbers (by historical, I mean only 15-25 years ago).

Another point: You regularly blame increased Striped Bass stocks as causing Menhaden depletion in the Bay, yet have not, to my knowledge, reconciled this with (1) the huge stocks of mostly larger Striped Bass that patrol coastal waters, where the Menhaden stocks are supposedly healthy and (2) the fact that Bluefish were at record levels and Weakfish were much more numerous when the Striped Bass population was down in the 80s. Are you saying that these massive schools of chopper Blues didn't do AT LEAST as big a number on Menhaden as Striped Bass do today?

I think we all agree that increased populations of predators put increased strain on forage, and declining water quality further strains the entire ecosystem --the latter is a situation that MD, VA, PA and NY -- and every citizen thereof -- need to more seriously address, otherwise the Omega debate will soon be moot. However, that does not mean that, knowing all of the other stress factors on the Bay population, it is wise policy to say, “oh well, since there are many issues at play, let's just continue to allow 100,000 tons of critical forage to be removed from an already strained Bay forage base.”


You raise some interesting issues.

However, here is the bottom line question for you: Say you have a leak in your swimming pool, as the result of two cracks. One crack leaks around a gallon a day; the other crack leaks around 1,200 gallons a day. Assuming you're interested in repairing these leaks, which leak would be the focus of your attention and efforts?

[boneman]

Hey look everybody - Junebug went back into the discussion and deleted a couple of his earlier posts!
You may remember this yourself - one item Junebug has struck from the record: a graphic depicting the max exent of the deadzone.
http://www.cbf.org/images/content/pagebuilder/39418.gif
http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_facts_deadzone#mains tem

As I remember events, Junebug claimed the deadzone was preventing menhaden from migrating up the Bay. Junebug, why did you see fit to delete your remarks on this subject? Must have deleted those posts by accident, right? [grin]

[goose70]

Junebug, I agree 100% that by far the greatest effort and expense needs to be towards reducing nitrogen/phosphate input into the Bay. The problem is that even if a huge effort would begin immediately, it would likely not yield results for a decade or more. And realistically, this will be a slow process compounded by the continued massive influx of people into the watershed (which for misguided reasons, our gov't officials celebrate and encourage).

But once again, that doesn't mean that we sit by and don't tackle the smaller -- but also important -- issues simultaneously. Rudy Giuliani attacked NY City's crime/corruption by first tackling the little issues, like graffiti and squeegeemen, to show that a change for the better COULD happen. He found that eliminating those little things not only energized others to take on the bigger problems, but it actually made a noticeable difference, by itself, in the overall reduction in crime/corruption. When a company with seemingly insurmountable problems hires my firm to defend it and fix the problems internally, we immediately tackle the things that can be fixed quickly and cheaply, then move up the task list. By the time we reach the most difficult/expensive problem, it’s been isolated and often is no longer as critical and expensive as it once was. Unburdened by its smaller problems, the company is in better shape to deal with (and, in the meantime, endure) the bigger issues. I don’t see why the Bay isn’t fundamentally the same.

[Barefoot]

junebug007 originally wrote:
Say you have a leak in your swimming pool, as the result of two cracks. One crack leaks around a gallon a day; the other crack leaks around 1,200 gallons a day. Assuming you're interested in repairing these leaks, which leak would be the focus of your attention and efforts?
Here's a better analogy- If the 1200 gallons per day leak was at the top of the pool and was always there, and the gallon per day leak was at the bottom, and was undermining the basic structure of the pool, and if you didn't fix the gallon per day leak, the whole yard would collapse, it woud be an easy choice.

[uncljohn]

If I am correct Junebug is none other than the infamous:

Mr. Neils Moore
Chief of Propaganda
National Fisheries Institite
7918 Jones Branch Drive
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
703-524-8884

[Purdue1]

You are behind the times. Actually it is very apparent that Junebug is not just one person but multiple people. It is the craziest thing I have ever seen an industry do. Battling activists on their website. It is quite funny to watch.

[manfromva]

junebug,
I thought you were a menhaden expert. you should know what menhaden do for the bay.

Juveniles primarily feed on zooplankton, but adults are mainly herbivores, but retain the ability to feed on zooplankton. The adults are very adaptable and will feed on several species of phytoplankton, as well as suspended organic plant detritus. Atlantic menhaden are an ecologically critical fish species. They consume and redistribute a significant amount of energy within and between the Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries, and the coastal ocean. This is due, in part, to their tremendous numbers, individual growth rate, filter feeding capacity, and seasonal movements. An adult fish can filter up to a million gallons of water every 180 days. A healthy Atlantic menhaden population has the potential to consume up to 25% of the Bay's nitrogen in 1-year.

Less nitrogen in the bay would mean less algae blooms which in turn (and here it is) less oxygen depleted water.

thanks again for the graph...

the information above can be found at:

<http://www.chesbay.org/forageFish/menhaden.asp

[junebug007]

Barefoot originally wrote:
junebug007 originally wrote:
Say you have a leak in your swimming pool, as the result of two cracks. One crack leaks around a gallon a day; the other crack leaks around 1,200 gallons a day. Assuming you're interested in repairing these leaks, which leak would be the focus of your attention and efforts?
Here's a better analogy- If the 1200 gallons per day leak was at the top of the pool and was always there, and the gallon per day leak was at the bottom, and was undermining the basic structure of the pool, and if you didn't fix the gallon per day leak, the whole yard would collapse, it woud be an easy choice.

LOL! If you were in charge, and focused on the 1 gallon leak instead of the 1,200 gallon leak, I'd find me a new pool manager.[grin]

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
junebug,
I thought you were a menhaden expert. you should know what menhaden do for the bay.

Juveniles primarily feed on zooplankton, but adults are mainly herbivores, but retain the ability to feed on zooplankton. The adults are very adaptable and will feed on several species of phytoplankton, as well as suspended organic plant detritus. Atlantic menhaden are an ecologically critical fish species. They consume and redistribute a significant amount of energy within and between the Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries, and the coastal ocean. This is due, in part, to their tremendous numbers, individual growth rate, filter feeding capacity, and seasonal movements. An adult fish can filter up to a million gallons of water every 180 days. A healthy Atlantic menhaden population has the potential to consume up to 25% of the Bay's nitrogen in 1-year.

Less nitrogen in the bay would mean less algae blooms which in turn (and here it is) less oxygen depleted water.

thanks again for the graph...

the information above can be found at:

<http://www.chesbay.org/forageFish/menhaden.asp

Interesting that you cite Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation materials. The CBEF is on the record as supporting a culling of striped bass in the Bay. Read for yourself:

...By the conclusion of the three-day workshop, however, scientists determined that research conducted thus far has not indicated any link between the abundance of menhaden in the Bay and the incidence of mycobacteriosis in striped bass.

Furthermore, preliminary scientific models prepared by Commission scientists indicate that the increased occurrence of undernourished striped bass in the Bay may be the direct result of an overabundance of this species – not the result of concurrent, sustainable commercial menhaden harvests.

Because predator species like striped bass feed heavily on prey species such as menhaden, scientists have increasingly developed methods to estimate the cumulative effects on menhaden populations by predators. Based on these preliminary studies, scientists indicate that the consumption of juvenile menhaden by striped bass is significant. In fact, when compared to the number of these menhaden harvested by commercial menhaden fishermen, these studies estimate that striped bass conservatively consume an order of magnitude more menhaden than harvested by fishermen.

"It would appear that striped bass populations may have exceeded their natural carrying capacity within the Chesapeake Bay as early as the late 1990s," notes Niels Moore, marine scientist and graduate of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. "Indeed, the striped bass stock, which has continued to grow despite reaching ‘fully recovered’ status in 1995, may have now ballooned to a disproportionate, and potentially unsustainable, size within the Bay."

Marine conservation organizations and others also assert that fishery regulators may need to reduce striped bass populations in order to preserve the Bay’s natural ecosystem. According to the Asbury Park Press, Jim Price of the Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation states, "We need to kill more of these fish," and adds, "I want to see the Bay get back into balance."

http://www.menhaden.org/news_pr_102504.htm

[manfromva]

junebug,
This is what is listed on there site now. your report was from october 2004. What was said a last years meetings. I think it was something along the lines of a cap on menhaden landings. Here is what the CBF is listing on it's site about striped bass now.
<http://www.chesbay.org/stripedBass/

"Striped Bass are the largest species of the Pecichthyidae family and can be found along the Atlantic Coast from northern Florida to the maritime provinces of Canada. Spawning however takes place almost entirely in the Hudson River and the Chesapeake Bay. They are voracious piscivores and grow rapidly as a result. Historically their diet is seasonal, comprising of bay anchovy and Atlantic menhaden in the summer and fall, and juvenile spot and Atlantic croaker throughout the winter. During the early spring their forage almost entirely consists of white perch with blueback herring and alewife becoming available to them in late spring and early summer.

In the late summer and fall months, it is extremely important for the bass to store up body fat. Besides giving the fish reserves to live off of during the lean winter months, the body fat in males assists in the development of gonads for spawning. The Spring and Fall seasons are also when Striped Bass attain most of thier growth for the year. This past fall, surveys showed alarming results in the general condition of the striped bass population. Judging from the data collected, there may be several factors influencing this. One of the most obvious was the lack of Atlantic Menhaden that normally dominate their diet this time of the year."

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
junebug,
This is what is listed on there site now. your report was from october 2004. What was said a last years meetings. I think it was something along the lines of a cap on menhaden landings. Here is what the CBF is listing on it's site about striped bass now.
<http://www.chesbay.org/stripedBass/

I'm having difficulty deciphering your post. At any rate, the link you've provided is to the Chesapeake Bay Ecological Foundation (CBEF), not the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). What's your point, anyway?

[Sea Gristle]

The points would be : A) it's about striped bass; B) it's about water quality.

Either way it's not about reducing the numbers of striped bass so they need less menhaden so Omega can take more.

[Porkchunker]

Don't you guys get it? Junebug, Omega, Mr. Simms, the MD DNR, the VAGA, and both Governors have already won this argument!!!

We only sit around our keyboard bashing each other in virtual reality, while the Commercials and Omega and their lobbyists are busy at work filling the pockets of the politicians in both States. None of those politcians feel threatened. Until we threaten them at the voting booth, things won't change.

So...get off your a$$, quit wasting so many keystrokes here against Junebug, and start writting your delegates, representatives, Governors, and tell them your vote and your $$$ will be against them at the next election.

Put your $$ where your mouth is, or your keystrokes will be as wasted in your letters as they are here.

Porkchunker

[manfromva]

junebug,
if you would have clicked on the site I listed above you would have seen that currently this is what the cbef has listed. And under the studies sections you will see where the guy you quoted James Price posted two studies that mention menhaden as the problem and not striped bass.

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
junebug,
if you would have clicked on the site I listed above you would have seen that currently this is what the cbef has listed. And under the studies sections you will see where the guy you quoted James Price posted two studies that mention menhaden as the problem and not striped bass.


Studies? Where? Mr. Price is a charter boat captain.

[Sea Gristle]

Porkchunker originally wrote:

Put your $$ where your mouth is, or your keystrokes will be as wasted in your letters as they are here.



Amen, PC.

What the recreational community needs is a PAC. Seems to work well for every other special interest group. Time to make our collective voices heard. The 501c's can't do it. $ talks.

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

Inexperience shows when you advocate threatening the person you are try to influence.
The worst thing you can do is tell a politician you are not going to vote for him....unless……

Showing strength in numbers is one thing, threatening, will get a back turned 99% of the time.

Of course you can stay on the road you have been on. Just look at the results.[wink]

[Sea Gristle]

Yep. One vote doesn't matter one way or another.

One man with a bunch of cash that could go into another candidate's campaign gets way more attention.

[Sea Gristle]

Here's a list of recipients of Omega's recent largesse and amounts of legal (known) contributions:

Amundson, Kristen (D) $200
Bell II, J Brandon (R) $150
Bolling for LG (R) $1,000
Byron, Kathy J (R) $250
Chichester, John H (R) $1,000
Cox, M Kirkland (R) $750
Drake, Thelma S (R) $150
Griffith, H Morgan (R) $250
Hall, Franklin P (D) $250
Hawkins, Charles R (R) $500
Howell, William J (R) $1,000
Janis, Bill (R) $150
Joannou, Johnny S (D) $150
Jones, Chris (R) $500
Kilgore for Governor (R) $2,500
Lingamfelter, L Scott (R)
Locke, Mamie E (D) $250
Louderback, Allen L (R) $250
Lucas, L Louise (D) $250
Marsh, Henry L III (D) $250
McDonnell, Robert F (R) $150
McDougle, Ryan (R) $150
Melvin, Kenneth R (D) $250
Morgan, Harvey B (R) $500
One Virginia PAC (D) $2,000
Orrock, Robert D (R) $250
Pollard, Albert Jr (D) $750
Saslaw, Richard L (D) $250
Shannon, Stephen (D) $250
Sherwood, Beverly J (R) $250
Shuler, James M (D) $250
Spruill, Lionell Sr (D) $250
Stolle, Kenneth W (R) $400
Stosch, Walter A (R) $500
Wagner, Frank W (R) $150
Welch, John J III (R) $150

Feel free to use this list to consider your future votes and contributions

[Purdue1]

Why make a statement about Omega giving big money to politicians, and then post a link showing how little they actually give??????

[Sea Gristle]

My intent was to give interested parties which delegates recieve documented donations through legal means, in case they are their personal delegates and may want to take action.

I personally don't believe this is the extent of Omega's contributions, just what is legally reported. It's just a place to start.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
I personally don't believe this is the extent of Omega's contributions, just what is legally reported. It's just a place to start.

Care to expand on your allegation of Omega making illegal political contributions? Or should we simply file your ruminations in the ol' circular file of unfounded, mindless blatherings?

[Sea Gristle]

I think I was clear that I was stating a personal belief, not a statement of fact.

Read the newspaper. You can't pretend it doesn't happen.

We are dealing with a Texas oil company, after all.

[captaingeorge]

Many of those entries are in duplicate. I trust you didn't do this intentionally to make the list appear longer, did you?

[Sea Gristle]

oops. Nope, just lack of proofreading.

[captaingeorge]

I wonder if Omega wishes their largest donation ($2,500) would've gone to Tim Kaine instead of wasting it on Kilgore?[smile]

[manfromva]

junebug,
obviously you seem to choose to not click on the site. I did not say it was a study. I said it was under the studies section. The guy James Price who you quoted earlier saying we needed to catch more stripers released two press releases saying that we needed more menhaden in the bay. And yes it is on the CBF site but it refererences the CBEF at the top of the page. Actually there is plenty of information on the site for you get aquainted with. If you look at my previous posts you can clearly see what I've said and none of my posts have been edited.

again the site is <http://www.chesbay.org/stripedBass/

[manfromva]

As for the donations made by Omega...I've always heard that give money through the names of their employees as to not to draw attention themselves. They of course have 200 of them in Reedville.

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
junebug,
I did not say it was a study. I said it was under the studies section.
LOL! Thanks for your clearly conflicting clarification. I would catagorize it all under the fiction section in the Dewey Decimal system.[grin]

[manfromva]

Just in case you missed this on the Va angler board...

H. Bruce Franklin
March/April 2006 Issue

IN A 1997 EPISODE OF THE SIMPSONS, evil tycoon C. Montgomery Burns claims that, under the tutelage of relentless environmentalist Lisa Simpson, he’s become a benefactor of society because he sweeps hundreds of millions of fish from the sea, grinds them up, and turns them into “Lil’ Lisa’s patented animal slurry”—“a high-protein feed for farm animals, insulation for low-income housing, a powerful explosive, and a top-notch engine coolant.” “Best of all,” he boasts, “it’s made from 100 percent recycled animals.”

Few viewers would have realized how closely the episode mirrored reality. Mr. Burns’ real-life counterpart is Malcolm Glazer, a billionaire tycoon who controls Omega Protein, a corporation that claims to benefit society because every year it sweeps hundreds of millions of fish from the sea, grinds them up, and turns them into high-protein animal feed, fertilizer, and oil used in linoleum, soap, lubricants, health-food supplements, cookies, and lipstick. Omega has only one business, hauling in just one kind of fish and converting it into those industrial commodities. That fish is menhaden, and in 1997, just as Mr. Burns was proudly displaying his loads of ground-up fish, Omega was consolidating its virtual monopoly on what is known as the menhaden “reduction” fishery.

So what problem could there be with using the Mr. Burns process on fish that few people have even heard of and nobody eats because they are too oily and full of bones and smell awful? The problem is that menhaden are the most important fish in North America.

This little fish has long been an integral part of our natural—and national—history. Menhaden were vital to the colonization of North America and the development of 19th-century American agriculture and industry. For most of the 20th century, menhaden provided the largest catch of any U.S. fishery, annually exceeding in both numbers and weight all other fish combined. More important still, by providing food for bigger fish and filtering the waters of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, menhaden play an essential dual role in marine ecology on a scale perhaps unmatched anywhere on the planet. And though menhaden have survived centuries of relentless natural and human predation, the current industrial onslaught on them may be unleashing an ecological catastrophe.




BLUNT HEAD, TOOTHLESS MOUTH, pudgy body—a menhaden sure doesn’t look like the superstar of coastal ecology. A mature adult is only about a foot long and weighs about a pound. Nobody will ever write a Moby-Dick about the menhaden. Yet a school numbering in the tens of thousands can weigh as much as the largest whale and behave like a single organism. Watch an acre-wide school creating flashes of silver with flips of forked tails and splashes, zigging and zagging, diving and surfacing, pursued relentlessly by bluefish and striped bass from below and gulls, terns, gannets, and ospreys from above—and you’re not so sure there’s no epic story here.

When Europeans first arrived on the east coast of America, they encountered a living river of menhaden flowing with the seasons north and south along the coast, extending out for miles, and sometimes filling bays and estuaries from Florida to Maine with almost solid flesh. In 1608, explorer John Smith found his two-ton boat laboring through a mass of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay “lying so thick with their heads above the water, as for want of nets (our barge driving amongst them) we attempted to catch them with a frying pan.” To the Pilgrims, menhaden were just another of the bountiful sea creatures God had intelligently designed for them, as described by an awestruck Reverend Francis Higginson in 1630: “The abundance of Sea-Fish are almost beyond beleeving, and sure I should scarce have beleeved it except that I had seene it with mine owne Eyes.”

Because menhaden were essential to this natural bounty, they were a powerful hidden force in the colonization of North America. As Mark Kurlansky wrote in Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World, it was superabundant food fish that first drew Europeans—the Vikings, then the Basques, and later the British—to North American waters. Nineteenth-century scientists, partly drawing on the knowledge of generations of fishermen, concluded that menhaden, members of the same family as herring and shad, were essential to the diet of almost all Atlantic predatory fish, including bluefish, cod, haddock, halibut, mackerel, weakfish, striped bass, swordfish, king mackerel, and tuna, as well as many marine birds and mammals, including porpoises and toothed whales. As the ichthyologist G. Brown Goode put it in his monumental 1880 volume, A History of Menhaden, “It is not hard to surmise the menhaden’s place in nature; swarming our waters in countless myriads, swimming in closely-packed, unwieldy masses, helpless as flocks of sheep, close to the surface and at the mercy of any enemy, destitute of means of defense or offense, their mission is unmistakably to be eaten.” He wasn’t far from the truth when he proclaimed that anyone enjoying a meal of American Atlantic saltwater fish was eating “nothing but menhaden!”

But where did this enormous biomass of menhaden, so crucial to the food chain above it, come from? Just as all those saltwater fish are composed mainly of menhaden, all those billions of tons of menhaden are composed almost entirely of billions of tons of the tiny particles of vegetable matter known as phytoplankton. Eating is just as crucial an ecological mission for menhaden as being eaten.

Eons before humans arrived in North America, menhaden evolved along the low-lying Atlantic and Gulf coasts, where nutrients flood into estuaries, bays, and wetlands, stimulating the potentially overwhelming growth of phytoplankton. Although menhaden are the major herbivorous fish of these coasts, they don’t chomp on plants. They are filter feeders that live on phytoplankton, which most other aquatic animals are unable to eat. Dense schools of menhaden, sometimes numbering in the hundreds of thousands, pour through these waters, toothless mouths agape, slurping up plankton and detritus like a colossal submarine vacuum cleaner as wide as a city block and as deep as a train tunnel. Each adult fish can filter about four gallons of water a minute. Purging suspended particles that cause turbidity, this filter feeding clarifies the water, allowing sunlight to penetrate and encourage the growth of aquatic plants that release dissolved oxygen and harbor a host of fish and shellfish.

Much of the phytoplankton consumed by menhaden consists of algae. Excess nitrogen can make algae grow out of control, and that’s what happens when vast quantities of nitrogen flood into our inshore waters from runoff fed by paved surfaces, roofs, wastewater, overfertilized golf courses and suburban lawns, and industrial poultry and pig farms. This can generate devastating blooms of algae, such as red tide and brown tide, which cause massive fish kills, then sink in thick carpets to the bottom, where they smother plants and shellfish, suck dissolved oxygen from the water, and leave dead zones that expand year by year.

In the natural ecosystem, menhaden cleaned the upper layers while another great filter feeder, the oyster, cleaned the bottom. But as oysters have been driven to near extinction in many Atlantic bays and estuaries by overfishing and pollution, menhaden are left as the only remaining check on deadly phytoplankton explosions. Marine biologist Sara Gottlieb, author of a groundbreaking study on menhaden’s filtering capability, compares their role with the human liver’s: “Just as your body needs its liver to filter out toxins, ecosystems also need those natural filters.” Overfishing menhaden, she says, “is just like removing your liver.”




THE NARRAGANSET CALLED THE FISH munnawhatteaug, “that which manures,” soon corrupted to “menhaden” by the English colonists. The Abenaki of Maine called them pauhagen, their word for “fertilizer,” hence “pogy,” still a common name for the fish. This is the fish Squanto may have taught the Pilgrims to plant with their corn.

In the early 19th century, menhaden became an industrial-scale fertilizer for the coastal farmland of New England and the mid-Atlantic, with countless rotting fish spread out over many acres to prepare the land for crops. Groups of farmers often formed small companies—with jaunty names like Coots, Fish Hawks, Eagles, Pedoodles, and Water Witches—that owned the boats, huge nets, and draught horses necessary to catch and haul tens and even hundreds of thousands of fish at a time.

With industrialization, the demand for lubricants and liquid fuel soared, a demand at first satisfied mainly by whale oil. But after the 1850s, with whales hunted to scarcity, menhaden became America’s main source of industrial oil. By the mid-1870s, the production of menhaden oil was 50 percent greater than the production of whale oil. More than 400 sailing ships and steamships hunted menhaden up and down the coast from Maine to the Carolinas, chasing schools sometimes 40 miles long. A single haul of a purse seine would often be filled with fish weighing as much as a blue whale. Almost 100 factories extracted the oil and sold the remaining “scrap” or “guano” as fertilizer for nascent agribusiness. The menhaden reduction industry had become a major component of the U.S. economy.

The reduction fishery reached its zenith during the technological frenzy that possessed the nation in the wake of World War II. The tools of war were directed at the little fish, as leftover naval vessels were converted into menhaden ships guided by spotter planes. Locating the schools no longer depended upon a lookout in the crow’s nest of a ship wallowing amid the waves. A spotter plane, canvassing huge areas at high speeds, could quickly spy schools that ships would not have detected. Hall Watters, a former World War II fighter pilot who in 1946 became the first menhaden spotter, recalled how in 1947, flying at 10,000 feet about 15 miles off Cape Hatteras, he spied a school so big that it looked like an island. Another time, Watters spotted a school about “five city blocks in diameter” and “dragging mud in 125 feet of water,” that is, solid from the surface all the way down 125 feet to the seabed. Dozens of boats managed to surround and annihilate the entire school. “I couldn’t believe they could destroy a school that size,” Watters recalled.

The Atlantic menhaden industry was booming. By 1949, National Geographic and Life magazine were saluting it with headlines ballyhooing “Uncle Sam’s Top Commercial Fish” and “Biggest Ocean Harvest.” The catch soared year after year, reaching a peak of 1.6 billion pounds in 1956. But not even the fish’s phenomenal fecundity could sustain them under this industrial onslaught. Menhaden usually spawn far out at sea, and spotters were finding schools as far out as 50 miles, some with so many egg-filled females that the nets would come up slimy with roe. Then, inevitably, the catch began to fall. By 1969, it had plummeted almost 80 percent. Looking back ruefully on the role he and other spotter pilots had played in the demise of the species, Watters (who died in 2004 at age 79) told me, “We are what destroyed the fishery, because the menhaden had no place to hide.”




THE COLLAPSE of the Atlantic menhaden industry allowed one company to gain almost exclusive control of the endangered fishery. In 1953, during the heyday of the Atlantic menhaden industry, George H.W. Bush cofounded Zapata Corporation, a wildcatting oil and gas exploration company headquartered in Houston. After Bush sold his stake in Zapata in 1966, the company began to branch out into fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, “wringing oil out of fish,” as one business journal snidely put it. In the early 1990s, reclusive real estate mogul Malcolm Glazer took control of Zapata, installed his son Avram as president and CEO, sold off the company’s oil and gas interests, purchased the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (forcing the city to impose a sales tax, still in effect, to build a grandiose new stadium), and turned Zapata into a mere shell for a subsidiary with a jazzy new name more fit for a health-food company—Omega Protein.

The Glazers started snapping up the competition like so many menhaden. Most of the eastern seaboard companies, including some founded in the 19th century, were going bankrupt or frantically merging with each other. In 1997, Zapata took over the remaining Atlantic and Gulf competitors, leaving only one small independent in each region. In 1998, Zapata spun off Omega Protein as a separate corporation, although it still owns 58 percent of the company, which is worth a mere $145 million and is Zapata’s only remaining business. In May of that year, the Wall Street Journal noted Zapata’s futile attempts to become a dot-com powerhouse while sneering at the Glazer family’s “fish-oil empire.”

Although not exactly a household name in America (except around Tampa), Glazer has managed to become arguably Britain’s most hated man, reviled almost daily in the British press since last May, when he bought a national icon—the Manchester United soccer team—and turned it into his “corporate toy.” To finance this coup, Glazer assumed a mountain of debt. Last December, Zapata announced that it is trying to sell off Omega Protein, possibly to help service this debt or perhaps to unload the business before its troubles become too obvious.

Omega now owns 61 ships and 32 spotter planes. Only 10 of the ships and seven of the planes—all based at the company’s factory complex in Reedville, Virginia—still operate on the Atlantic coast. And there Omega has big problems.

As Atlantic menhaden have declined, their range has contracted. The biggest, most oil-rich fish used to concentrate off New England in the summer. But from 1993 until 2004, no significant schools of adult menhaden were observed north of Cape Cod. As awareness grew of menhaden’s importance to the dwindling stocks of Atlantic food and game fish, state after state banned the fishery from its waters. Today the only Atlantic states that still allow it are North Carolina and Virginia. Unable to fish in the waters of any other states and no longer able to find large oceanic schools in federal waters, which begin three miles out from the states’ coasts, Omega Protein now gets close to 70 percent of its Atlantic catch from the Virginia waters of the Chesapeake Bay. The industry has been forced “into a box,” Omega spokesman Toby Gascon told the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) last July. “We have nowhere else to go.”

But the Chesapeake, the tremendous tidal estuary that once produced more seafood per acre than any body of water on earth, is an ecological disaster. Historically, it was once the world’s greatest source of oysters, menhaden’s partners in filtration. But by the 1990s, overfishing and pollution had reduced the bay’s oyster population to less than 1 percent of what it had been at the turn of the 20th century. An alarming study by environmental scientist James Hagy and others in the scientific journal Estuaries in 2004 demonstrated that from 1950 to 2001 nitrogen overloads from human activities were stimulating rampant overgrowths of phytoplankton, literally choking the bay, creating ever-expanding dead zones. Benjamin Cuker, professor of marine and environmental science at Virginia’s Hampton University, has discovered that these dead zones have continued to enlarge every year since 2001: “All the way from south of the Potomac to the Bay Bridge the water below eight meters is now severely hypoxic, uninhabitable by any organism that demands any significant amount of oxygen.”

All of which makes the conservation of menhaden even more urgent. “With the oyster population gone and little hope of its return, menhaden are absolutely critical to restoring the health of the bay,” says Bill Matuszeski, former executive director of the National Marine Fisheries Service and former director of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program. Bill Goldsborough, senior scientist of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, is alarmed by the huge catch of menhaden, “the main filter feeders that keep the bay’s food web in balance,” and sees these guardians of the bay becoming victims of a deadly “perfect circle”: “Menhaden are big targets of Pfiesteria, the toxic algae known as ‘the cell from hell.’ The menhaden are ground up and fed to the big chicken farms on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Chicken manure from these chicken farms is the dominant source of the nitrogen entering the Chesapeake from the Eastern Shore. The nitrogen triggers the Pfiesteria, which then infects the menhaden.”

Thanks to Omega’s slaughter of approximately 233 million pounds of Chesapeake menhaden each year, the fish can no longer perform their other great ecological mission: being eaten by animals higher up the food chain. The most dramatic effect is on striped bass, the bay’s signature fish.

The Chesapeake is the world’s principal spawning region for striped bass, but half the stripers in the bay are now diseased with mycobacterial infections. Some scientists now think that the stripers are sick because they are malnourished, and malnourished because they are not getting enough menhaden to eat.

Thanks to the slaughter of 233 million pounds of Chesapeake menhaden each year, the fish can no longer perform their great ecological mission.

The person who first connected the loss of menhaden with the diseases of the stripers, or rockfish, as they are known around the bay, is Jim Price, a fifth-generation waterman who used to captain a rockfish charter boat. When Price encountered his first diseased rockfish in the fall of 1997, he recalls, “It was so sickening it really took something out of me.” When he opened the stomachs of others, “I couldn’t believe what I saw—nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing. Not only was there no food, but there was no fat. Everything was shrunk up and small.”

Omega’s Gascon, who did not respond to requests for comment for this story, insists that Chesapeake stripers are suffering from neither disease nor malnutrition. After he claimed last June, “I don’t know where they’re getting that info that they’re not healthy and suffer from a lack of forage,” I decided to see for myself.




LAST JULY, I went out for stripers with Price on his 29-foot Bertram. We sailed into the bay from the four-mile-wide mouth of eastern Maryland’s Choptank River, close to where Price and the previous four generations of his family have always lived. Accompanying us were Joe Boone, an ex-paratrooper who had worked for 27 years as an estuarine biologist in the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and Jim Uphoff, then the stock assessment coordinator for the DNR’s fisheries service. Having caught or seen hundreds of healthy striped bass in New Jersey and New York, I was horrified by what I saw that night. Except for one, every striper we caught was covered with open red sores, often eating deep into the flesh. The only fish without sores was pathetically skinny.

The three men were unanimous in targeting the problem. “It’s plain evidence of how critical menhaden are to the health of the striped bass,” Boone said. “Menhaden are the keystone species.” “This is what happens when we use our menhaden as forage for chickens rather than forage for fish,” Uphoff said, adding, “There’s nothing in this bay that can take menhaden’s place.” Boone later told me that in writing about what I had witnessed, “you can’t overemphasize the importance of this fish to the ecology of the entire East Coast.”

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission imposes limits on the catch of almost every species of commercially valuable fish within three miles of the coast—except for menhaden. When the ASMFC began hearings last year on whether to place limits on the menhaden reduction industry, it was swamped with many thousands of messages urging it to restrain Omega’s strip mining of the Chesapeake. Conservation and anglers organizations—including Coastal Conservation Association, Environmental Defense, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and National Coalition for Marine Conservation—banded together to form Menhaden Matter, dedicated to raising public awareness. Greenpeace led a flotilla of dozens of small vessels to Omega’s complex at Reedville, where young enviros and veteran fishermen united in a floating demonstration beside the company’s fleet while inhaling the stench from its factory. In a press release, Omega’s Gascon claimed all this ruckus was instigated by “fanatical big-game angler organizations…willing to go to any lengths of deception and defamation in their attempts to expand the sport-fishing industry at the expense of the centuries-old sustainable harvest of menhaden.”

For the first time ever, the ASMFC imposed a limit on the menhaden reduction industry, restricting its annual catch in the Chesapeake for the next five years to around 117,000 tons, its average catch for the last five years. Although some argue that this merely grants Omega a license to keep doing what it’s been doing, the company has indicated that it may try to have the limit revoked by the Virginia Legislature, which has long granted the industry’s wishes, and, if that fails, go to court or even move its Atlantic fleet to the Gulf of Mexico.

Such a move might exacerbate the ominous conditions in the Gulf. Scientists there are seeing the same problems studied in the Chesapeake—especially phytoplankton blooms from nitrogen overloads—on a much larger scale. Hypoxia and dead zones in the Gulf already encompass an estimated 8,000 square miles, an area as big as the entire Chesapeake and all its tributaries. The waters directly impacted by nitrogen from the Mississippi basin are precisely where Omega’s dozens of huge factory ships are concentrated.

What purpose does the menhaden reduction industry serve by slaughtering and commodifying menhaden? Omega’s financial reports disclose that fish oil is a substitute for vegetable fats and oils, and fish meal, the company’s main product, is a substitute for soybean meal, which even the industry journal National Fisherman acknowledges “serves the same purpose.” If Omega’s main product—chicken and pig feed—is just a stand-in for soy, why not shut down or at least downsize the fishery and plant more soybeans? That would benefit fish and farmers, create jobs, and reduce nitrogen runoff, since soybeans keep nitrogen fixed in the soil.

But Omega Protein doesn’t grow soybeans.

H. Bruce Franklin, John Cotter Professor of English and American studies at Rutgers University, has written and edited 18 books on American culture and history. His years of pondering the sea have included working as a deckhand on tugboats in New York harbor and serving as president of the Melville society.

[captaingeorge]

manfromva originally wrote:
As for the donations made by Omega...I've always heard that give money through the names of their employees as to not to draw attention themselves. They of course have 200 of them in Reedville.
Sorry, Billy, but if you can't back it up, it's BS. Doesn't even sound right. Have YOU ever had an employer give you money and ask you to donate it to someone?

[manfromva]

george,
I just heard that companies have a cap on how much that they can give to each member of the General Assembly so in order to pad the pockets of the politicians they give their employees money to send to the GA members. sounds plausible. I know Omega incourages their employees to give money to certain key committee members. I just don't know if they money is actually theirs. I can't find the website but there is a site that shows every contribution given to each member with name, address, and occupation. I'll do another search for it and post it if I can.

I agree for that little money Omega gives...no politician should be swayed to vote against a healthy menhaden population or a healthier bay.

[Purdue1]

It happens all the time George....I read about it in the newspaper once..[grin][grin]

I will say that making slanderous accusations, not based on any fact...........then having CCA in your signature line..............does not reflect well on the CCA. If I was Juniebuggers lobbyists, I would print a few pages of this slander off of the website, and drop it off with the staff members at every delegates office I went to. I would say, here is what CCA members are saying about you. You don't really need much in the form of contributions with that kind of ammunition.

[Sea Gristle]

Way off base Purdue. My own personal opinions are not CCA's anymore than yours reflect Omega's. And it's not even a new idea. Omega's spokestools have been misusing members personal opinions as CCA positions for over a decade.

[captaingeorge]

manfromva originally wrote:
I know Omega incourages their employees to give money to certain key committee members.
No doubt this is true. But I don't think very many Omega employees are the type that donate much to politicians.

[manfromva]

Here is the website...I was talking about...
<http://www.vpap.org/cands/index.cfm

Northumberland county has given a substantial amount. It sorts by givers, recievers, industries

It really is irrelavant and I'm sorry if I made accusations. I really do no care who gives to who. In all reality I just want what's best for the bay.

Having a healthy menhaden population in the bay should be priorty #1
High nitrogen levels,low oxgenated water,less algae blooms, fish lesions, global warming( well maybe not global warming) all can be helped by an increase in the menhaden population in the bay.

As for me being a CCA member...I pay my dues and my opinions are my opinions. I do attend a meeting every now and then but as far as me being a spokesperson for the CCA..I'm not.

[Purdue1]

manfromva originally wrote:
As for me being a CCA member...I pay my dues and my opinions are my opinions. I do attend a meeting every now and then but as far as me being a spokesperson for the CCA..I'm not.



I understand, but everyone needs to realize that you (anyone who is advertising CCA on the bottom of their post), are representing CCA rather you like it or not. The party line that I have seen adopted by CCA members that "I am speaking for myself not CCA", does not hold water. I am not saying this to be mean spirited. I work for an industry association and among the many hats I wear, one is regulatory affairs. I cannot make unbiased accusations, or I totally lose my credibility and regulators/government officials will not listen to me when I need for them to. In this arena you cannot lie, and you cannot make accusations that strongly offend the people you are trying to work with (unless it is for a targeted strategy that was well thought out). That is why I am flabergasted to see people making accusations that cannot be backed by any fact. It ruins the credibility of CCA and I would make a strong bet that Junnies lobbiests capitalize on this.

[Purdue1]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
Way off base Purdue. My own personal opinions are not CCA's anymore than yours reflect Omega's. And it's not even a new idea. Omega's spokestools have been misusing members personal opinions as CCA positions for over a decade.


So why do you give them ammunition? I am not off base, you are off base. Why would you represent CCA in this manner and how would it benefit CCA to be represented in this manner?

Why would my opinions reflect Omegas???? I am actually a member of CCA. I would hope more members would speak up in these regards.

[Sea Gristle]

Again I do not represent the CCA. My opinions are, often as not, not shared by the CCA. To use it as a basis for why Omega should br sllowed to continue its plunder of the resource is merely an attempt to divert the discussion away from the obvious.

[captaingeorge]

Purdue1 originally wrote:
I understand, but everyone needs to realize that you (anyone who is advertising CCA on the bottom of their post), are representing CCA rather you like it or not.
I agree with this wholeheartedly but also know Billy personally and am confident that the health of the bay really is a primary concern of his.

[Purdue1]

The ASMFC study will handle the obvious, in the mean time, progress could be made on the political level, but not like this. Please don't divert the discussion, then blame me for doing so because I responded to you. This is insanity.

[boneman]

If manfromva were an elected official of CCA, that would be one thing...

By way of example, do the opinions of Jonh Q. Republican directly influence the policies made by George Bush or the positions adopted by the Republican National Committee?

If J.Q.R. were to blog about the need to send Regis Philbin into orbit - does that somehow become the official republican position regarding NASA and the future of manned space flight?

[Purdue1]

Sorry capt George, was responding to the other poster. I understand what you are saying. There is many a good heart involved here.....

[Purdue1]

Boneman, I am not sure about your hypothetical examples. I am speaking from real world experience having worked for associations and having to represent people who have acted the way that I see here. Not trying to poke anyone in the eye.

Have you ever had to go talk to a government official after your members have made offensive statements about them???????? I have.

[Sea Gristle]

Purdue, when one of your association members said something offensive, how did you respond?

[Purdue1]

I said, "sorry about that guy (or those guys), they are idiots and we don't really claim them. Every organization has a group of idiots that we have to put up with". or something to that effect, and I suspect you knew that would be my answer.......but it doesn't really undue the negative impact. It is a waste of time to have to make excuses for your members insulting behavior. It works counter to the efforts of the organization, and when an organization has too many of these type of people, it tarnishes the image of the organization......and the image of the organization is very important.

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

Purdue1 originally wrote:
I said, "sorry about that guy (or those guys), they are idiots and we don't really claim them. Every organization has a group of idiots that we have to put up with". or something to that effect, and I suspect you knew that would be my answer.......but it doesn't really undue the negative impact. It is a waste of time to have to make excuses for your members insulting behavior. It works counter to the efforts of the organization, and when an organization has too many of these type of people, it tarnishes the image of the organization......and the image of the organization is very important.


From what I've seen and read on this website, the name CCA needs to be jacked up and a new organization driven under the name.

When will it be about the fish?

[Porkchunker]

.

[Sea Gristle]

Purdue, what exactly are my " slanderous" and "insulting" remarks?

[Sea Gristle]

Capt. Mike Anderson originally wrote:

From what I've seen and read on this website, the name CCA needs to be jacked up and a new organization driven under the name.



Ready when you are Cap. I'll be your first member. Any serious organization that promotes a cleaner healthier bay and improved fishing gets my support.

Rather than reading people's opinions about CCA I'd like to offer you an invitation to see for yourself and make up your own mind.

[captaingeorge]

How's this example? Someone in the military has the same rights and freedoms of expression as every other citizen. But when they're in uniform, they are representing the US and what they say can be construed as such. Take off the uniform, and what they say is a personal opinion.
If someone wears a badge that says "John Q. Republican", he is a representative of Republicans.
If someone's signature says "Member CCA, or whatever", whatever they say reflects on that organization.

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:
"A strong argument can be made that we have too many small striped bass in the Bay and that is causing disease, starvation, and forage fish problems."


105,000 metric tons of bunker would feed a lot striped bass...

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
junebug007 originally wrote:
"A strong argument can be made that we have too many small striped bass in the Bay and that is causing disease, starvation, and forage fish problems."


105,000 metric tons of bunker would feed a lot striped bass...

To *which* striped bass are you referring, exactly?

[Sea Gristle]

the ones that aren't turned into fertilizer.

[junebug007]

Sea Gristle originally wrote:
the ones that aren't turned into fertilizer.

Clever.[grin]

As clarification, you are referring to all the striped bass that -- at some point -- swim in the Chesapeake Bay. Correct?

[manfromva]

Hey junebug,
I am curious to know what you thought of the article written by Bruce Franklin. Mainly do you think it depicts the history of menhaden. What it was in the days of John Smith to it's current status. Was it predation, disease, or man that has put the menhaden in it's current condition?

[Sea Gristle]

junebug007 originally wrote:
As clarification, you are referring to all the striped bass that -- at some point -- swim in the Chesapeake Bay. Correct?


That reference comes from your original quote - I presume you know what the author is referring to. Me, I'm talking about the small, starved and diseased striped bass that are prevalent in the bay.

[Purdue1]

Good for you! My government relations 101 tutorial is now complete! [excited][excited] ..... I will have to start charging for my services.

[manfromva]

junebug,
I really didn't think I would see a response to my last question. Thanks for the no reply...it gives me my answer

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
Hey junebug,
I am curious to know what you thought of the article written by Bruce Franklin. Mainly do you think it depicts the history of menhaden. What it was in the days of John Smith to it's current status. Was it predation, disease, or man that has put the menhaden in it's current condition?

The fact that the author begins his diatribe with a reference to a Simpson's episode says it all... pure comedy!

As example, referring to the menhaden as "endangered", "overfished" and "slaughtered" exemplifies the wholly erroneous and anti-human nature of the article (do sport fishermen "slaughter" striped bass, as well?). Please.

As for what "put the menhaden in it's current condition" (which is healthy, by the way), the answer is a combination of mother nature and man, as is the case with most renewable natural resources.

[manfromva]

Junebug,
So according to you after the first two paragraphs the rest of the article holds no water as a true depiction of the history of the menhaden? It seems to me that he told the whole story from the native americans to the present time.

As for menhaden being a renewable resource I agree. If less than 50% were left to spawn each year.
I manage land for landowners and to do that we grow hardwoods on lands that will allow it by leaving the best trees for seed trees (to get their genes) and to start a new stand underneath for at least ten years and then we go back and remove them to allow the younger seedlings light to grow into a future stand. And on lands that are suited for pine, we remove all the trees and replant with new loblolly tree seedlings. Actually there is more to it than that. But my point is when was the last time omega released menheden fingerlings into the bay or for that matter any man or industry. All I've ever known the reduction plants to do was pay for a commercial fishing license and take as much menhaden as were available. Even farmers plant their crops and fertilize every year.
What has the menhaden fishery done to make sure year after year that they catch enough menhaden to make money the following year? It seems to me that there use to more reduction plants when the menhaden were more plentiful and not just healthy.

[junebug007]

manfromva originally wrote:
Junebug,
So according to you after the first two paragraphs the rest of the article holds no water as a true depiction of the history of the menhaden? It seems to me that he told the whole story from the native americans to the present time.

As for menhaden being a renewable resource I agree. If less than 50% were left to spawn each year.
I manage land for landowners and to do that we grow hardwoods on lands that will allow it by leaving the best trees for seed trees (to get their genes) and to start a new stand underneath for at least ten years and then we go back and remove them to allow the younger seedlings light to grow into a future stand. And on lands that are suited for pine, we remove all the trees and replant with new loblolly tree seedlings. Actually there is more to it than that. But my point is when was the last time omega released menheden fingerlings into the bay or for that matter any man or industry. All I've ever known the reduction plants to do was pay for a commercial fishing license and take as much menhaden as were available. Even farmers plant their crops and fertilize every year.
What has the menhaden fishery done to make sure year after year that they catch enough menhaden to make money the following year? It seems to me that there use to more reduction plants when the menhaden were more plentiful and not just healthy.


Of course, forestry and fisheries share little biological similarity. Nonetheless, your proposition is likely unfeasible due to simple economics. At $0.05/lb, it ain't gonna fly. Besides, a large individual fecund female can hold 300,000+ roe. When all is said and done, science seems to indicate that it's a combination of meteorological, oceanographic and ecological conditions that determine the success of spawning and subsequent recruitment.

Looks like menhaden had a banner year in 2005. The VA recruitment survey caught about 20x the previous five-year average. MD's and PRFC's indices were significantly higher, as well, I believe.

[manfromva]

the only problem with the menhaden renewable resource plan is that most of the menhaden that are caught are age 2. And according to www.mehaden.org some menhaden reproduce at the end of 2 but most don't reproduce until age 3. I would agree with your sustainable fishery if the fishery mostly caught age 3 fish or older. The past low recruitment has to be contributed to less fish reaching spawning age due to death by man, predation, and disease.

[manfromva]

Junebug,
another difference between forestry and the menhaden fishery is that we are growing more timber now than we use to have 100 years ago.

[Sea Gristle]

Zapata/Omega is still functioning under a 19th century Texas "oil wildcatter"/ resource exploitation mentality. "Saving some for seed" doesn't compute. That's why soybeans will win in the long run.

Corporate profit is all that counts. They're not in the reduction business for the long haul, only for as long as it remains profitable. And when it isn't, that will be the true test of how good a corporate citizen Omega is, how concerned they are for the continued employment of those Reedville citizens they trot out to plead their case.

[manfromva]

Junebug or stripper,
If your still on here... I did a search of Northumberland Co. employment and unemployment from 1990 to 2005 and just wondering if you can see what the unemployment rates do between Dec. and May every year. Isn't that during the same time omega stops and then starts fishing.
Here is the link
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/empc/LAUCN511330.htm

[Roger T]

Sorry ....I dont read to much into there science.....just look at the bay today[sad]What are we paying these guys for ?

Shred the net's,It shure cant help a eco system already in trouble now can it.

[SUNDAWG]

Fact & Fiction seem to be confused on this board.How is it someone that has never been in the menhaden fisherie can just one day say there are no menhaden omega caught them all ? Why is it you feel the menhaden population is in trouble?Fact ive been fishing out of reedville for 15 years and the last 6 have been the best ive ever had.Ijust hope that people who have never even seen a menhaden or menhaden boat dont read this hype and believe it to be fact.Seems a lot of anglers are having a hard time catching there prey and its easier to blame omega than consider the two thousand boats there trolling threw could be busting the schools up. THIS MUST BE THE B S BOARD[wink]

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

SUNDAWG originally wrote:
Fact & Fiction seem to be confused on this board.How is it someone that has never been in the menhaden fisherie can just one day say there are no menhaden omega caught them all ? Why is it you feel the menhaden population is in trouble?Fact ive been fishing out of reedville for 15 years and the last 6 have been the best ive ever had.Ijust hope that people who have never even seen a menhaden or menhaden boat dont read this hype and believe it to be fact.Seems a lot of anglers are having a hard time catching there prey and its easier to blame omega than consider the two thousand boats there trolling threw could be busting the schools up. THIS MUST BE THE B S BOARD[wink]


Come North into Maryland waters and try to find the big schools of menhaden.

Fact is, I've been fishing 50 years in the middle bay.

Menhaden aren't here.

[goose70]

SUNDAWG, if the last few years have been so terrific, please explain Omega's steadily declining catch, which, according to its own documents, has been in a death spiral for some time.

Oh wait...I know the answers. Menhaden are cyclical and the now decade-long trend is all part of mother nature's way. Or, in the alternative, we now have too many Stripers -- imagine what sorry shape the Bay must have been in before people came along to keep the Striper population in a healthy balance.

Hmmm...or maybe, Omega has voluntarily (and covertly) reduced its catch steadily over the years. You folks must be true stewards of the Bay to risk a shareholder lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty just to ease pressure on the Menhaden. I take back every bad thought I've ever had about Omega. [grin]