[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

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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
[/Q]
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?

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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. [/Q]

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!

 

[junebug007]

[Q]Sea Gristle originally wrote:
[Q]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.
[/Q]

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

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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
[/Q]
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).

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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.
[/Q]
So, the sportfishing for charters on the Rappahannock has been bad, huh?

 

[junebug007]

.

 

[junebug007]

.

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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.

[/Q]

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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.
[/Q]
You lost me. What is their 'job'?

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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."

[/Q]
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?

 

[junebug007]

[Q]Barefoot originally wrote:
[Q]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?
[/Q]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.
[/Q]
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]

[Q]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
[/Q]
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

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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/
[/Q]
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?

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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.
[/Q]

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

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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.[/Q]

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?

 

[junebug007]

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

 

[junebug007]

[Q]Sea Gristle originally wrote:
[Q]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."
[/Q]

105,000 metric tons of bunker would feed a lot striped bass...
[/Q]
To *which* striped bass are you referring, exactly?

 

[junebug007]

[Q]Sea Gristle originally wrote:
the ones that aren't turned into fertilizer.
[/Q]
Clever.[grin]

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

 

[junebug007]

[Q]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?
[/Q]
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.