October 2, 2012 — The following was released by the Public Trust Project
The Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) has no record of the votes it has made regarding Atlantic menhaden, the controversial forage fish that has been called “the most important fish in the sea” because of its contribution to the diets of dozens of ecologically significant fish, mammals, and shorebirds.
PRFC Executive Secretary A.C. Carpenter confirmed to the Public Trust Project that he does not keep track of the votes he has cast on menhaden at meetings of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the multi-state agency that manages marine fish in state waters. He was unable to produce a record of his positions at the ASMFC, even for recent years.
The Potomac River Fisheries Commission is represented by equal numbers of delegates from Maryland and Virginia, which share jurisdiction of the Potomac River and its natural resources. Carpenter votes on behalf of the PRFC delegates when attending ASMFC regulatory meetings.
When it comes to menhaden, Maryland and Virginia do not get along. Carpenter is put in the position of standing between two warring powers whose perspective on “the most important fish in the sea” could not be more different.
Virginia is home to Omega Protein, an industrial harvesting company that catches a quarter to half a billion pounds of Atlantic menhaden annually, grinding them into oils and fishmeal for sale, largely to markets in Asia and Europe.
Maryland, on the other hand, banned the industrial menhaden fishery from its state waters in 1931, and has been a tireless advocate of menhaden conservation ever since.
Elected officials in Virginia have accepted campaign finance contributions from Omega Protein many years running, while officials at the highest levels of Maryland government have taken a public stance against the company’s massive harvest: Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has been a vocal advocate for responsible and timely management of menhaden. Attorney General Douglas Gansler has said that he is considering taking Omega Protein to court if the ASMFC does not cut back the allowable harvest of menhaden.
Because Maryland and Virginia are diametrically opposed on menhaden, the two states should cancel each other out on menhaden management when it comes to the Potomac River Fisheries Commission. Carpenter’s vote should be “null.”
But despite equal representation, a review of Carpenter’s comments and motions, recorded in ASMFC meeting minutes, suggests that he often comes down on one side — that of Virginia and the industrial menhaden fishery that exists on Virginia shores.
Read the full story at the Public Trust Project
Analysis: In “No Records Kept: The Potomac River Fisheries Commission’s Mysterious History on Menhaden,” Public Trust Project Director Alison Fairbrother attacks the Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) for allegedly failing to keep a record of its votes at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), and alleges that the PRFC improperly sides with Virginia at ASMFC meetings. The PRFC represents the interests of the Potomac River region on the ASMFC, and is composed equally of delegates from Maryland and Virginia. These criticisms misrepresent the rules and obligations that govern PRFC voting, and misrepresent the role of the PRFC’s vote within the Commission.
According to the article, the PRFC’s Executive Secretary, A.C. Carpenter, “was unable to produce a record of his positions at the ASMFC, even for recent years.” However, the article fails to mention that keeping a record of votes is not required at the ASMFC. Many ASMFC actions are done by consensus, with no tally of the votes kept. The article is critical of Mr. Carpenter for this, despite his adherence to the policies of the ASMFC and the PRFC.
The article expresses the opinion that, because Maryland and Virginia comprise equal parts of the PRFC, when there is a conflict in policy between the two, the PRFC should abstain from voting. It states, “Because Maryland and Virginia are diametrically opposed on menhaden, the two states should cancel each other out on menhaden management when it comes to the Potomac River Fisheries Commission. [PRFC Executive Secretary A.C.] Carpenter’s vote should be null.”
However, the Public Trust Project’s opinion on how PRFC should operate misrepresents PRFC policy and guidance on how the Executive Secretary should vote during ASMFC sessions. According to the PRFC guidelines – which were cited in the article by the Public Trust Project –the Executive Secretary (who represents the PRFC at the ASMFC) is required to vote for the PRFC’s position on an issue, only if one has been established. If not, the Executive Secretary is instructed to formulate his or her vote by consulting other members of the PRFC, by trying to be as consistent with Maryland and Virginia’s positions as possible, and by relying on his or her best judgment and the best available science.
A commissioner quoted in the Public Trust Project article expressly stated that he does not always vote in keeping with the science, but rather often votes with his “gut.” A vote by the Executive Secretary that is in keeping with the science rather than the gut reaction of a commissioner would be in line with PRFC policy.
The article also makes reference to menhaden as being referred to as "the most important fish in the sea." This qualitative judgement is derived from the book The Most Important Fish in the Sea, by Rutgers English professor H. Bruce Franklin. There is no scientific evidence supporting the idea that any one species of fish is "most important," and promulgating and represents only the authors' opinion rather than any scientific consensus.
Nothing alleged by the Public Trust Project in this article is inconsistent with either the standard practices of the ASMFC or the voting guidelines of the PRFC. The article implies wrongdoing where none is occurring.