Fishing Industry Alerts

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — April 30, 2015 — The following was released by the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance:

Commercial fishermen throughout the United States have stood up and opposed the plan by the Gulf of Mexico state managers to take over red snapper management and eliminate the commercial quota system.

“It’s incredible the response we’ve gotten,” said Buddy Guindon, Executive Director of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance based in Galveston, TX. “From Alaska to Maine, California to South Carolina, our brother and sister commercial fishermen have united around this issue and see it for what it is – a precedent-setting backdoor means by the recreational lobby to reallocate this fishery, undermine federal laws, and take fish away from seafood consumers.”

Forty two commercial fishing organizations, representing thousands of commercial fishermen and tens of millions of pounds of commercially important seafood, signed onto a letter drafted by the Shareholders’ Alliance which states “The implications of such a takeover are far-reaching and set a dangerous precedent for our region and others – over 97% of the more than 300,000 million Americans get their access to fish and shellfish by purchasing it in restaurants, grocery stores, and fish markets that we supply. We cannot support this plan in the Gulf because we would not support it at home.”

“This isn’t just a Gulf issue, it has national implications,” said John Pappalardo, CEO of the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance based in Chatham, MA. “We stand with the Gulf fishermen and oppose this dangerous plan that will destroy small American ‘mom and pop’ businesses.”

According to an announcement, representatives from the five Gulf States met in a closed-door off-the-books meeting in New Orleans where they developed a plan to take over management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and eliminate the commercial individual fishing quota (IFQ) system. The management responsibility, currently held by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and National Marine Fisheries Service, would be turned over to a yet-to-be-developed group called the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority, and would consist of 5 individuals, one from each Gulf State, that propose to operate outside of U.S. federal fisheries laws and sustainability policies. Each Gulf State would be responsible for management of their own waters out to 200 nautical miles, and would be in charge of creating the science and data to use for their management. Funding for this program would be siphoned from existing federal programs.

Read a letter from a group of commercial fishermen who oppose the gulf states red snapper takeover

With good fisheries management as is now practiced in the U.S. and elsewhere forage fish declines will not be caused by fishing.

SEAFOODNEWS.COM (Ray Hilborn) — April 22, 2015 — So the lesson from the most recent decline of California sardine is we have to adapt to the natural fluctuations that nature provides.  Yes, sea lions and birds will suffer when their food declines, but this has been happening for thousands of years long before industrial fishing. With good fisheries management as is now practiced in the U.S. and elsewhere forage fish declines will not be caused by fishing.

Two items in the last weeks fisheries news have again caused a lot of media and NGO interest forage fish. First was publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of a paper entitled “Fishing amplifies forage fish population collapses” and the second was the closure of the fishery for California sardine.  Oceana in particular argued that overfishing is part of the cause of the sardine decline and the take home message from the PNAS paper seems to support this because it showed that in the years preceding a “collapse” fishing pressure was unusually high.
 
However what the PNAS paper failed to highlight was the real cause of forage fish declines.  Forage fish abundance is driven primarily by the birth and survival of juvenile fish producing what is called “recruitment”.  Forage fish declines are almost always caused by declines in recruitment,  declines that often happen when stocks are large and fishing pressure low.  The typical scenario for a stock collapse is (1) recruitment declines at a time of high abundance, (2) abundance then begins to decline as fewer young fish enters the population, (3)  the catch declines more slowly than abundance so the harvest rate increases,  and then (4) the population reaches a critical level that was called “collapsed” in the PNAS paper.  Looking back at the years preceding collapse it appears that the collapse was caused by high fishing pressure, when in reality it was caused by a natural decline in recruitment that occurred several years earlier and was not caused by fishing.
 
The decline of California sardines did not follow this pattern, because the harvest control rule has reduced harvest as the stock declined,  and as fisheries management practices have improved this is now standard practice.  The average harvest rate for California sardines has only been 10% per year for the last 10 years, compared to a natural mortality rate of over 30% per year.  Even if there had been no fishing the decline in California sardine would have been almost exactly the same.
 
In many historical forage fish declines fishing pressure was much higher, often well over 50% of the population was taken each year and as the PNAS paper highlighted, this kind of fishing pressure does amplify the decline.  However many fisheries agencies have learned from this experience and not only keep fishing pressure much lower than in the past, but reduce it more rapidly when recruitment declines.
 
So the lesson from the most recent decline of California sardine is we have to adapt to the natural fluctuations that nature provides.  Yes, sea lions and birds will suffer when their food declines, but this has been happening for thousands of years long before industrial fishing.  With good fisheries management as is now practiced in the U.S. and elsewhere forage fish declines will not be caused by fishing.

Ray Hilborn is a Professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington specializing in natural resource management and conservation.  He is one of the most respected experts on marine fishery population dynamics in the world.

This opinion piece originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

Mayor Mitchell urged the Council to adopt Alternative 7 for Georges Bank and Alternative 5 for the Great South Channel.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — April 23, 2015 — This morning, New Bedford, Massachusetts Mayor Jon Mitchell delivered remarks on Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) to the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) at the Council's meeting in Mystic, Connecticut. Mayor Mitchell urged the Council to adopt Alternative 7 for Georges Bank and Alternative 5 for the Great South Channel, with clam gear exemptions, citing the alternatives' scientific backing, popular support among those impacted by the management actions under consideration, and compatibility with National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
 
Mayor Mitchell highlighted the fact that Alternatives 7 and 5 are the preferred alternatives of the NEFMC's Habitat Committee. Specifically, he noted that, based on the Council's Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) model analysis, these alternatives are a significant improvement over the habitat protections currently in place, and reflect the conclusions of the best scientific information available.
 
Mayor Mitchell also reminded the council of its obligation under National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to consider the economic impacts of regulations in formulating management decisions. The Mayor submitted to the Council a letter of support for the alternatives signed by nearly 380 fishermen, vessel owners, shoreside business owners and employees, and other concerned members of fishing communities supporting Alternatives 7 and 5. The petition, whose signatures were collected over only the past two days, reflects the broad support within the industry for these measures.
 
The mayor pointed out that revenue from those fisheries does not only improve economic conditions for boat owners and fishermen. Rather, the entire community benefits from an economically stable fleet. Fishery revenues directly fund local jobs and infrastructure including those in processing, marine equipment, construction, housing, hospitality, and many more areas. It also increases tax revenue to provide critical social services including education and community development.
 
He noted that these alternatives have the support of the groundfish and scallop industries, and protect the concerns of the surf clam industry. By providing access to economically important fishing grounds while improving protection over current measures, Mayor Mitchell explained that these alternatives best balance conservation with the needs of industry and communities, and thus best comply with National Standard 8.   

Listen to Mayor Mitchell's remarks before the Council

Read the letter submitted by Mayor Mitchell to the Council

View the letter from 380 fishing community members supporting Alternatives 7 and 5

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

Last week, NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator John Bullard submitted a nine-page letter to the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) critical of recommendations made by the Council’s Habitat Committee on Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) . OHA2 is a decade-in-the-making overhaul of the habitat closures off the coast of New England, reflecting the best scientific understanding of the Northwest Atlantic seafloor.

Read Administrator Bullard’s letter in full here.

Read the FSF rebuttal to Administrator Bullard’s letter in full here.

The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), which represents the majority of the full-time Limited Access scallop fleet, has prepared a point-by-point rebuttal to Administrator Bullard's letter, which was sent to the NEFMC yesterday.

The following are highlights from the FSF rebuttal. 

Georges Bank

1. The Agency claimed: that opening "the area would reverse 20 years of habitat protection and recovery in an area that is highly vulnerable to adverse effects of mobile bottom-tending gear”

FSF responded: “Independent and objective analysis … shows that the area to the west, called Georges Shoals and included in Alternative 7, is more vulnerable to adverse impacts than the [previously protected areas].”

2. The Agency claimed:  "[it] seems unlikely that maintaining the gear restrictions in the Closed Area II Habitat Closed Area/HAPC alone would be sufficient to improve habitat protection for juvenile cod and other groundfish species on Georges Bank.”

FSF responded: “[No] action on the Northern Edge be viewed in isolation from actions taken in, for instance, the Great South Channel, where significant closures of juvenile cod [habitat] can be expected with the Committee’s preferred alternative. … Large-scale effort reductions across New England fisheries have already improved habitat protection by decreasing area swept. Realized adverse effects across all gear types have declined even more significantly since 1996. … There is, therefore, no doubt that the management process has already improved habitat protection on Georges Bank and that Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 will further improve such protection based on the totality of the record.

 Figure 8 – Comparison of estimated realized adverse effects from the SASI model by gear type and calendar year. All values in km².

3. The Agency claimed: that Alternative 7 falls “far short of the current Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area in several key metrics, including a lower percent coverage of gravel-cobble…

FSF responded: Although the percentage of gravel-cobble is less in Alternative 7 “the total gravel-cobble area that would be closed to fishing is much higher (approximately 470 square kilometers in Alternative 7 vs. approximately 274 square kilometers in the Northern Edge), because Alternative 7’s proposed closure area is more than twice as large. Such an alternative, which covers more actual square kilometers of a vulnerable substrate, presents a reasonable method of achieving the desired protection in a practicable manner.

4. The Agency claimed:  “The Georges Shoal 2 Habitat Management Area has little to no EFH for cod, haddock, pollock, and three skate species.”

FSF responds: This assertion is a misreading of the chart it cites for authority. The Georges Shoal 2 area, in fact, has “moderate” coverage for juvenile cod and “high” coverage for adult cod based It also contains habitat for several other species included in the such as wolffish, juvenile red and white hake, windowpane flounder, winter flounder, adult yellowtail flounder, little skate, winter skate, scallops, and herring eggs. In addition, this NMFS assertion only considered half of Alternative 7. The other half, known as “Essential Fish Habitat South” overlaps coverage for additional species.

5. The Agency claimed:, “The area within Alternative 7 has very little current trawl or scallop dredge activity from which adverse effects are accruing, particularly in the most recent few years.”

FSF responded: “The purpose of this action is not to restrict fishing for the sake of doing so. … Alternatives must be selected based on an analysis and weighing of the metrics for habitat conservation. Otherwise, once an area was closed to fishing, it would never be eligible for reopening—which clearly is not and has never been the Council’s intent.

Great South Channel 

The Agency claimed: “Looking at the habitat management alternatives collectively, the combination of preferred habitat management areas being recommended by the Committee results in meaningful reductions in overall habitat protection and would fail to adequately minimize the adverse effects from fishing on EFH in the region.”

FSF responded: Alternative 5 in the Great South Channel would protect a major area of vulnerable substrate and habitat. The alternative covers over 700 square km of vulnerable gravel and cobble substrate. The area covered by this substrate alone is larger than the entire juvenile cod protected area in the Northern Edge.

(Saving Seafood) On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) is poised to take final action on the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2).

April 21, 2015 — The culmination of over a decade of planning, scientific analysis, and stakeholder engagement, the OHA2 represents the end result of an exponential increase in our understanding of the seabed and ocean habitats since the implementation of the first OHA. OHA2 has the potential to update the vast network of habitat area closures off the coast of New England to the benefit of ecosystems and industry alike. However, should the Council pursue final actions that unnecessarily restrict fishing access for regional fishermen, the results could cause serious economic hardship for hard-working communities without providing any additional environmental benefits.

This week, the NEFMC will vote on its preferred course of action, and then send these recommendations to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for final approval. These proposals cover a wide range of options and potential closures developed by the Council with input from environmental groups, the industry, and other stakeholders. The Council has an opportunity to adopt alternatives that will preserve the unique and most essential fish habitats while still allowing fishermen access to the region’s most productive fishing grounds. These alternatives are based on the most up-to-date scientific information on the closed areas, and provide significant improvements over the current slate of closures. However, this deliberative process has not been without controversy, or without misinformation campaigns from special interest groups.

Saving Seafood has covered the OHA2 process extensively and combated misinformation when it has arisen. Saving Seafood’s coverage has included detailed examinations of the science behind the habitat closures, as well as times when that information has been misrepresented and distorted. With the process set to conclude this week, Saving Seafood reminds our readers of our prior attention to this issue. You can learn more about these important events by reading our past coverage, included below.

For an extensive look at the Northern Edge of Georges Bank, one of the most important and hotly debated of the closed areas, view our story: “Habitat debate intensifies ahead of Council vote; Many ask, ‘Do closures even work?‘”

For an examination of how relevant fisheries law and fisheries science has been subjected to high-profile misrepresentations during the OHA2 process, view our story: “Conservation Law Foundation twists law, science in latest attach on Omnibus Habitat Amendment.”

For an analysis of what the most current science concludes about the Georges Bank closed areas, as well as how that science has been interpreted (and sometimes misinterpreted) in the media, view our story: “Analysis: Conservation Law Foundation Misleads Public on Habitat Closed Area Changes.”

The NEFMC and NMFS have an obvious solution before them in the form of Alternatives 5 and 7, both of which ensure a thoughtful and successful balance of interests all working toward the same common goal.

New England's historic fisheries are too important to our communities, to our economies and to our cultural heritage to allow special interest politics to stand in the way of substantive progress. Contrary to recent claims by some environmental organizations, the New England Fishery Management Council's (NEFMC) proposed updates to habitat closures in our region via Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) will align our commercial fisheries with exponentially improved science that better protects both our industries and our environment.

Currently under consideration as part of this process, the NEFMC must pursue Alternative 5 for the Great South Channel and Alternative 7 for Georges Bank. These proposals will improve conservation, advance our fishing industries, expand our scientific understanding of these important areas and secure a future for our fisheries as prestigious as our past.

When habitat closures were first enacted in New England, scientists knew more about the surface of the moon than of the seafloor comprising the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, much of it just miles off our coats. Today, our advancements in scientific research are astounding, and it is incumbent on our leaders that this knowledge be put to use in a capacity that mutually benefits our environment and the hard-working fishermen whose livelihoods rely on it.

These scientific achievements were not without hard work and cooperation. Scallop and groundfishermen alike volunteered their resources, their expertise and their time to conduct thoughtful research and create innovative solutions that put us in a far better place today than when closures were first enacted two decades ago.

The impacts of this progress on our fisheries and on our efforts to conserve these crucial ecosystems are not mutually exclusive. Much the opposite, they are fundamentally inextricable. For our fisheries to succeed, so too must our environment. In order to accomplish this dual mission, the NEFMC must continue its course to update our habitat closures in accordance with the most recent and accurate information about our fish and their ecosystems.

To be clear, these goals do not exclusively require that we open current closures. Fishermen share the same goals as environmentalists who seek to bolster environmental sustainability. Our scientific breakthroughs merit opening some obsolete closures, but they may also require creating new ones. The scallop industry has proposed options for consideration that include extensive closures, and fishermen from an array of industries have similarly identified valuable areas worth closing off.

Read the full op-ed at the New Bedford Standard-Times

The question is whether this downward ratchet represents a responsible application of the precautionary principle (a term nowhere found in the Magnuson-Stevens Act) or a lack of will to "walk the talk" that fishermen are to be rewarded for their sacrifices.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — April 7, 2015 — The following commentary appeared in the "Washington Lookout" section of the May 2015 issue of National Fisherman Magazine:

Some see fisheries management as a one-way ratchet: Harvest levels fall at the slightest whiff of bad news, but rebound slowly, if at all, when stock status improves. While this may be an overstatement, it's not exaggerating to observe that, all things equal, managers are more likely to make cuts based on bad news than to raise harvest levels on good news.

The question is whether this downward ratchet represents a responsible application of the precautionary principle (a term nowhere found in the Magnuson-Stevens Act) or a lack of will to "walk the talk" that fishermen are to be rewarded for their sacrifices when stock conditions are shown to have improved. Blind pessimism and a reflexive failure to accept good scientific news do not constitute true precaution. Rather, they amount to what environmentalists often criticize fishermen for: failing to accept a solid scientific conclusion based on the argument there might be some countervailing signal the data and modeling aren't yet detecting.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is confronting this situation for Atlantic menhaden. The 2010 stock assessment concluded menhaden were subject to overfishing by a wafer-thin margin, a finding also of the 2012 update. The latter, however, failed as a statistical matter, plagued by a retrospective pattern that made it impossible to determine whether the stock was grossly overfished or at target levels. Following a massive media and public relations campaign, the commission established a stockwide quota and cut allowable fishing levels by 20 percent beginning in 2013.

The menhaden fishing industry reacted constructively. It undertook a preliminary aerial survey of menhaden's northern range, which demonstrated what seemingly everyone but the assessment model knew: larger, older (age 3-plus) menhaden do live north of Delmarva, largely outside the fishery. Earlier assessment models, which relied solely on catch data, overestimated mortality of this more fecund segment of the population.

The coupling of new data with a more realistic model in the 2014 benchmark assessment, each responsive to past peer review recommendations, led to a finding that Atlantic menhaden are neither overfished nor subject to overfishing – and have not been for well over a decade. The fishing mortality rate is the lowest on record and, since 2007, fecundity (the stock size measure) is at its highest sustained level in the 58-year time series. The assessment passed peer review with flying colors.

The commission now confronts the ratchet litmus test. Does it react favorably to good news, or maintain its cuts as hedge against a potential future adverse assessment or in response to unrelenting pressure from fishery opponents?

Read the full story at National Fisherman

The question is whether this downward ratchet represents a responsible application of the precautionary principle (a term nowhere found in the Magnuson-Stevens Act) or a lack of will to "walk the talk" that fishermen are to be rewarded for their sacrifices when stock conditions are shown to have improved.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — April 7, 2015 — The following commentary appeared in the "Washington Lookout" section of the May 2015 issue of National Fisherman Magazine:

Some see fisheries management as a one-way ratchet: Harvest levels fall at the slightest whiff of bad news, but rebound slowly, if at all, when stock status improves. While this may be an overstatement, it's not exaggerating to observe that, all things equal, managers are more likely to make cuts based on bad news than to raise harvest levels on good news.

The question is whether this downward ratchet represents a responsible application of the precautionary principle (a term nowhere found in the Magnuson-Stevens Act) or a lack of will to "walk the talk" that fishermen are to be rewarded for their sacrifices when stock conditions are shown to have improved. Blind pessimism and a reflexive failure to accept good scientific news do not constitute true precaution. Rather, they amount to what environmentalists often criticize fishermen for: failing to accept a solid scientific conclusion based on the argument there might be some countervailing signal the data and modeling aren't yet detecting.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is confronting this situation for Atlantic menhaden. The 2010 stock assessment concluded menhaden were subject to overfishing by a wafer-thin margin, a finding also of the 2012 update. The latter, however, failed as a statistical matter, plagued by a retrospective pattern that made it impossible to determine whether the stock was grossly overfished or at target levels. Following a massive media and public relations campaign, the commission established a stockwide quota and cut allowable fishing levels by 20 percent beginning in 2013.

The menhaden fishing industry reacted constructively. It undertook a preliminary aerial survey of menhaden's northern range, which demonstrated what seemingly everyone but the assessment model knew: larger, older (age 3-plus) menhaden do live north of Delmarva, largely outside the fishery. Earlier assessment models, which relied solely on catch data, overestimated mortality of this more fecund segment of the population.

The coupling of new data with a more realistic model in the 2014 benchmark assessment, each responsive to past peer review recommendations, led to a finding that Atlantic menhaden are neither overfished nor subject to overfishing – and have not been for well over a decade. The fishing mortality rate is the lowest on record and, since 2007, fecundity (the stock size measure) is at its highest sustained level in the 58-year time series. The assessment passed peer review with flying colors.

The commission now confronts the ratchet litmus test. Does it react favorably to good news, or maintain its cuts as hedge against a potential future adverse assessment or in response to unrelenting pressure from fishery opponents?

Read the full story at National Fisherman

The Coalition finds compelling consensus among scientific experts, fishermen, and journalists that the species is healthy, wide-ranging, and sustainably managed.

April 1, 2015 (Menhaden Fisheries Coalition) — A new report compiled by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition reaffirms the positive results of the 2014 Atlantic Menhaden Benchmark Stock Assessment. The report compares the latest stock assessment’s findings to numerous reported sightings of large schools of the species along the Atlantic coast. The Coalition’s conclusions reveal a compelling consensus among scientific experts, fishermen, and journalists that the species is healthy, wide-ranging, and sustainably managed.

In 2015, Atlantic menhaden, a fish that has been no stranger to media attention over the past few years, once again made headlines. After years of pessimistic evaluations, the stock found its outlook suddenly reversed with the publication of the most recent stock assessment, completed in 2014. The news is almost entirely positive: the species is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing, and has not been close for over a decade. Since 2007, in several key metrics, it is performing at or near record bests.
 
But these fish don't just exist on paper, a theoretical byproduct of computer models and scientific estimates. They have been spotted coast-wide, in numbers and in places that are far beyond the Mid-Atlantic-based menhaden fishery. This is consistent with what fishermen have been saying for years about large numbers of menhaden in more northern areas of the Atlantic, and what recreational anglers, whale watchers, and even environmental organizations have reported throughout 2014 and 2015. Now,what observers have been seeing in the water has aligned with what's printed on the pages of the assessment.
 
Most prominently, in the last year, innumerable numbers of large menhaden schools have been sighted in the vicinity of New York harbor, although more often than not they have been forced from the headlines and replaced in the spotlight by the humpback whales that have followed in their wake. Both local New York media outlets and national outlets such as the CBS Evening News have noted that humpback whales had a very visible presence in 2014, the apex of a trend of increased sightings over the past few years. One of the main factors believed to be drawing them to the area has been the opportunity to feed on large schools of menhaden, which attests to the size and frequency of the menhaden schools in the region.
 
But the menhaden sightings go beyond the five boroughs. As far north as Providence, anglers have reported to the Providence Journal schools of menhaden large enough to fill the state's Mossassuck River. Writers for the Connecticut Post  have similarly seen "great shoals of bunker" leading an "onslaught" of local waters. Recreational fishermen have noted a general resurgence of menhaden in the Northeast, greatly improving sport fishing for the predator species that are never far from menhaden schools. Such sightings are truly coast-wide, with The Florida Times-Union reporting that large menhaden schools have been appearing even as far south as Jacksonville, Florida. Reports such as these have been surfacing for many years. As far back as 2012, prior to any Atlantic menhaden harvest cuts, the Asbury Park Press was reporting that "large schools of Atlantic menhaden" were drawing whales, dolphins, and other predator species to the New Jersey coast, and the Norwich Bulletin noted "lots of menhaden" venturing into Connecticut's waters on a daily basis.

These appearances are consistent with what many in the menhaden fishery have been seeing and saying for years. Fishermen working on commercial reduction and bait boats have had no trouble locating large schools of menhaden, and spotter pilots frequently are able to see large numbers of menhaden from the air. A recent aerial survey conducted by scientists at the University of New England also recorded large numbers of the fish in waters around New York and New England, areas that are considered to be within the species' northern range. Managers are only just now considering this portion of the menhaden population in their assessment of the stock. Previously, and perplexingly, these fish weren't counted.
 
Most importantly, all of these observations are consistent with what the new assessment concludes: there are large numbers of adult menhaden outside the range of the waters around Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey, where the menhaden reduction and bait fisheries have concentrated their harvests. Up until now, these menhaden were not accounted for in stock assessments. Finally accounting for these fish is one of the most important outcomes of the 2014 assessment.
 
Following a technically flawed 2012 assessment, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the interstate body that manages menhaden, completely overhauled its assessment process. Models were revised, new data was considered and incorporated into the assessment, and previous assumptions about the behavior of the stock were reviewed and corrected. The end result is a more accurate, more thorough, and more complete evaluation. It is, by a wide margin, the most accurate and comprehensive survey of Atlantic menhaden ever conducted.
 
Including previously uncounted fish is one of the primary reasons many of the metrics used to measure the menhaden stock are so positive. Fishing mortality, the number of menhaden that are caught by the fishery, is at its lowest point since record keeping started in the 1950s. At the same time, fecundity, the number of eggs being produced, is the highest it has been in 40 years. Other measures, such as the abundance of adult menhaden and the spawning stock biomass, are also in the healthy range.
 
There is still room for improvement in the stock, with overall abundance levels still remaining low. But the more promising figures are actually a better indicator that the stock is being managed sustainably, because taken together, they show that the commercial fishery is not significantly impacting the species' long-term ability to sustain itself. Given the high number of eggs being produced and the respectable number of highly fertile adult spawners in the population, the coast-wide stock has more than enough reproductive capacity. This means that the species is well-equipped to take advantage of the favorable environmental conditions that lead to successful spawning.
 
Anecdotal observations and scientific data can sometimes come into conflict with each other, creating ambiguities as to what the situation out on the water really is. But in other cases, the observations of fishermen, the reports of journalists, and the findings of scientists align in agreement, and in turn present a clear, definitive picture. For Atlantic menhaden, a durable and encouraging consensus has emerged: the species is healthy, wide-ranging, and sustainably managed.
 
About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition is a collective of menhaden fisherman, related businesses, and supporting industries. Comprised of over 30 businesses along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition conducts media and public outreach on behalf of the menhaden industry to ensure that members of the public, media, and government are informed of important issues, events, and facts about the fishery.
 
References
 
Axelrod, Jim. "There's a New Tourist Attraction in NYC: Whales." CBS News. August 23, 2014.
 
Huch, Christopher. "Bunker Schools Draw Various Predators to LBI." Asbury Park Press. August 23, 2012.
 
"Humpback Whale Spotted 6 Miles from NYC." CBS New York. August 28, 2015.
 
"Marine Biologist James Sulikowski Leads Menhaden Survey Funded by $250,000 Grant." University of New England. October 12, 2011.
 
McMurray, John. "Northeast Menhaden Run Sparks Striper Action." Salt Water Sportsman. October 3, 2014.
 
Plautz, Jessica. "49 Humpback Whales Were Spotted in NYC This Year, and the Season's Only Half Over." Mashable. August 12, 2014.
 
Sampson, Bob. "Fishing Report for Aug. 9." The Norwich Bulletin. August 9, 2014.
 
Turner, Scott. "'Silver Dollars' in Providence Waters." Providence Journal. September 20, 2014.
 
Walsh, Charles. "Time to Snag Bunker for Live Lining Before They Disappear." Connecticut Post. June 8, 2014.
 
White, A. Quinton. "River Life: What's that Silver Ripple in the St. Johns?" The Florida Times-Union. September 25, 2014.

 
Download a PDF of the report here
 
Download a larger version of the infographic here