Ray Hilborn Archives - Page 4 of 9

Ray Hilborn: New study provides no new information on global fishing footprint

March 7, 2018 — University of Washington fisheries researcher Ray Hilborn said that a new study using satellite data from industrial fishing vessels to map global fishing effort fails to provide any new insight, despite media reports indicating otherwise.

The study, published in Science in February, used messages transmitted between 2012 and 2016 from the automatic identification systems (AIS) of more than 70,000 industrial fishing vessels to create a global footprint, concluding that “industrial fishing occurs in over 55 percent of ocean area,” according to the abstract.

But Hilborn said the vessels monitored for the study were in large part tuna boats over 100 feet, which have been monitored for decades.

“Most of the footprint data they have is from high-seas tuna fishing, because that’s really the only thing that goes on on the high seas. Maps of the tuna long-lining and seining distribution have been distributed as part of the standard operating procedure by the tuna RFMOs [regional fisheries management organizations] for decades. I remember looking at them 30 or 40 years ago. There’s nothing new about this – that tuna fishing goes on across much of tropical oceans and some of the temperate oceans,” Hilborn told SeafoodSource.

Not only is this not new information, Hilborn said, but it does little to measure the impact of trawling on certain ecosystems, which Hilborn said can be much more severe than high-seas fishing.

“A place that has had one long-line for albacore or big-eye tuna in five years is obviously not very heavily fished, he said. “But if you go to Southeast Asia, we can calculate how often the average piece of bottom is trawled a year. In the U.S., depending on where, it’s about once every three years. In Southeast Asia or India, they are trawled 10 to 20 times a year. That means the impact of fishing there is probably 1,000 times higher than it is on the high seas where someone once visited with a long-line boat.”

Furthermore, the trawling data provided in the new study, Hilborn said, overestimates the proportion of the sea-bed that is affected by 10 times. Hilborn and his team have just completed a five-year study that attempts to provide a finer-grained look at the impact of trawling by aggregating data from vessel-monitoring systems, logbooks, and on-board observations.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Media Fails Again on Fisheries Data; New Maps Don’t Show Intensification of Fishing – Hilborn

February 26, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The lead article in Science this week, picked up in numerous publications, highlighted data from the AIS vessel tracking system to show the global impact of industrial fishing.

The authors state that vessels are now fishing in 55% of the world’s oceans, which is an area four times larger than occupied by onshore agriculture.

The immediate popular conclusion was that this shows immense overfishing, and Oceana was quoted saying “That means we’re putting more pressure on fish populations.”

But that is not what the data show. As pointed out consistently by Professor Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington, the comparison with agriculture is simply wrong.

Hilborn says “The comparison to agriculture fails to note that the 50 million square kilometers under agriculture have destroyed the natural ecosystem as the plow or new pasture eliminates the native plants. The areas fished, particularly for tunas, have changed very little.”

Furthermore, “Fishing does not impact the primary production (plants), and in very few cases does it impact the species that graze on the primary producers. So the 50 million square kilometers of the earths’ surface that is used for agriculture is totally transformed, most of the oceans that are being fished (high seas tuna) have some changes in top predators abundance. “

Hilborn points out that “High seas fishing for tuna, which constitutes the majority of the “footprint” shown in the Science paper has been mapped for 40 years, and the widespread nature of high seas tuna fishing is well known. The footprint of bottom trawlers has been mapped in much finer scale already in many places, and the Science paper overestimates the proportion of the seabed impacted by trawls by 10 fold.”

The AIS data is interesting, and allows for specific types of research that was not possible before. However, the dataset does not give as accurate a picture of global fishing as does the comprehensive database on fish stock surveys and catch records.

Hilborn says “For most of the areas where there are data in this study, fish stocks are actually increasing and tuna populations are well documented and globally stable.”

Hilborn is a longtime collaborator with Dr. Boris Worm, one of the authors of the paper. Together they did a groundbreaking study of global fisheries databases, and helped create a standard dataset to measure fisheries catches and stock health. Neither Worm nor the other authors are claiming that the AIS study shows increased fishing pressure on stocks, they are simply reporting that the tracking data provides a new visualization tool for global fisheries.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Dr. Ray Hilborn: New Study on Fishing Effort ‘Does Not Provide Any New Insight’ on How Fishing Impacts Oceans

WASHINGTON — February 23, 2018 — A new study published in Science Magazine found that large-scale commercial fishing covers more than 55 percent of the world’s oceans. Today, Dr. Ray Hilborn, a respected fisheries expert and professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, responded to the study in a statement, saying in part that it “does not provide any new insight on the impact of fishing on the oceans.”

“The media claims that this paper shows that fishing has a wider impact than previously known is simply wrong,” Dr. Hilborn said. “For most of the areas where there are data in this study, fish stocks are actually increasing and tuna populations are well documented and globally stable.”

Dr. Hilborn’s full statement is reproduced below:

This new study in Science using the AIS data does provide detailed information on fishing effort of specific vessels, but it does not provide anything new about the global pattern of fishing. High seas fishing for tuna, which constitutes the majority of the “footprint” shown in the Science paper has been mapped for 40 years, and the widespread nature of high seas tuna fishing is well known. The footprint of bottom trawlers has been mapped in much finer scale already in many places, and the Science paper overestimates the proportion of the seabed impacted by trawls by 10 fold.

The media claims that this paper shows that fishing has a wider impact than previously known is simply wrong. For most of the areas where there are data in this study, fish stocks are actually increasing and tuna populations are well documented and globally stable.

The comparison to agriculture fails to note that the 50 million square kilometers under agriculture have destroyed the natural ecosystem as the plow or new pasture eliminates the native plants. The areas fished, particularly for tunas, have changed very little. Fishing does not impact the primary production (plants), and in very few cases does it impact the species that graze on the primary producers. So the 50 million square kilometers of the earths’ surface that is used for agriculture is totally transformed, most of the oceans that are being fished (high seas tuna) have some changes in top predators abundance.

Certainly AIS data is very interesting and can let us look at specific things we could not do before, but it does not provide any new insight on the impact of fishing on the oceans.

Dr. Ray Hilborn talks U.S. fisheries policy at Bevan Series lecture

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – January 8, 2018 – Last week, Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, presented on U.S. fisheries policy and how scientists can communicate with Congress to promote good decision-making. The lecture, “Is U.S. Fisheries Policy Working? Getting the Message to Congress,” was the first of the 2018 Bevan Series on fisheries management.

The Bevan Series features “internationally recognized experts” discussing current issues facing fisheries and marine conservation. This year’s series features 10 weekly seminars held at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Thanks ASMFC For Adopting Best Science on Menhaden Ecological Reference Points

WASHINGTON — November 14, 2017 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) thanks the Commissioners of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Atlantic Menhaden Management Board for following the best available science in setting reference points for Atlantic menhaden.

As part of Amendment 3 to the Atlantic Menhaden Intestate Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Commission voted 16-2 to continue current management measures for Atlantic menhaden until its Biological Ecological Reference Points (BERP) Workgroup finishes developing menhaden-specific ecological reference points (ERPs). These ERPs are supported by the MFC, and would manage menhaden based on its role in the ecosystem as forage for predator species.

The best science shows that managing forage fish according to general biological principals, as advocated by various environmental and sportfishing groups, is not the correct approach. Earlier this year, Dr. Ray Hilborn and a team of top fishery scientists released a study that recommended forage fish be managed on a case-by-case basis, based on the unique biological and ecological factors affecting individual forage species. The BERP Workgroup is following this advice in its work developing a menhaden-specific management model.

While these reference points are being developed, current menhaden management has led to a healthy stock. The ASMFC’s 2015 and 2017 stock assessments of Atlantic menhaden found that menhaden is not overfished and not experiencing overfishing.

Days Before High-Stakes Menhaden Vote, Questions and Uncertainties Abound

Amendment 3’s new Ecological Reference Points in Center of Controversy

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 10, 2017 — By Marisa Torrieri:

As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission prepares to vote on highly-contested benchmarks for managing menhaden next week, uncertainties about the potential ripple effect of new ecological reference points (ERPs) are fueling heated exchanges between environmental groups and fisheries.

On November 13 and 14, the Commission is expected to meet to vote on Amendment 3, which will establish management benchmarks, and consider ecological reference points for menhaden, a bony and oily forage fish that is a primary food source for bigger fish such as striped bass and humpback whales and is harvested commercially for oil and fertilizer. The Commission also plans to review and potentially update state-by-state quota allocations.

Should the commission vote for “Option E” under Amendment 3 — an approach largely favored by environmental groups — the ASMFC would establish interim ecological reference points that would set a target of 75 percent and a threshold of 40 percent of a theoretical unfished stock. The ASMFC’s Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup would continue to develop Menhaden Specific ERP.

Fishermen whose livelihoods depend on the fish say the impact of this option would be catastrophic to their business.

Jeff Kaelin, head of government relations for Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., in Cape May, N.J., said New Jersey would lose a lot of jobs and money, in the event that interim ERPs took effect.

“With Option E, if we fish at the target that the environmental community is advocating, we’ll have a 25 percent cut in the fishery we have today, and that’s significant,” says Kaelin. “In 2013, when the quotas were established … we lost access to 50 percent of the fish. This is worth about $2 million to the state of New Jersey if we take a 25 percent cut. That’s what would happen, and there’s no need for it because the science is so robust.”

Yet environmental groups have countered that Option E, if selected, would not trigger draconian changes — it would simply put new goals in place that would benefit everyone, which could be phased in based on an organization’s own time table.

“The ERP is the goal, what you’re trying to achieve,” said Joseph Gordon, a senior manager for Pew Charitable Trusts, who directs campaigns to conserve forage fish. “Option E doesn’t tell you how fast to get there and how much risk to take. If the Commission decides to move forward Option E, they will be opting to have a very high population [of menhaden] in the ocean. When we talk about Option E, the goal of that is to achieve and maintain a high biomass of fish in the ocean. That should support significant amounts of fishing in the case of menhaden, over time as the population grows. The benefits to everyone, including commercial fisheries, is the goal of management.”

Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation also suggested Option E isn’t as bad as fisheries are making it out to be.

“Option E would say ‘OK, we now have a new target … fisheries would need to make changes to ensure they’re hitting that target,” says Moore. “But it’s not ‘we shall do this, we shall do that.’ If you look at the last stock assessment, the last quota showed we’re increasing. There’s a lot of leeway for the managers to get to the target.”

Omega Protein Corporation, the largest participant in the menhaden fishery, is based in Reedville, Va., a state that is currently allocated 85 percent of the catch. It says comments from environmentalists in support of Option E sugarcoat the potential economic impact of the ERPs.

Omega Protein is in favor of the more conservative Option B, which keeps ERPs at the existing status quo levels, until better mathematical models for menhaden are available.

“To say that the current reference points are inadequate, and we want to change them, and then say, ‘we won’t mandate that the harvest be cut when over the target,’ that’s ludicrous,” says Monty Deihl, Vice President of Operations for Omega Protein. “The environmentalist solution is looking for a problem, and there is no problem! We only take 8 percent of the biomass per year. The current model says you could harvest 300,000 metric tons per year without overfishing. With Option E, there’s a 25 percent cut in the harvest.”

Shaun Gehan, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who represents Omega Protein, said that environmentalists promoting Option E as a “phased approach” — while the language within the Option calls for a clear cut in fishing activities — are hypocritical.

“The real issue is if one believes that menhaden should be at 75 percent un-fished levels and the target [fishing mortality] helps achieve that, then it is hypocritical to advocate for anything but a cut,” he says. “It seems there is a lot of folks that want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, being able to say, ‘ecological reference points’ are being used, while avoiding harvest reductions they entail because no one thinks cuts are warranted in light of menhaden’s abundance.”

THE ROAD TO AMENDMENT 3

One of the biggest arguments for clamping down on menhaden fishing, one which has resonated with the public, is that concerns about menhaden weren’t on anyone’s radar until recently, when reports warned that the supply was in danger.

According to Pew, people started to “wake up” to the menhaden issue after a coast-wide decline in menhaden in the 1990s through the early 2000s that attracted a lot of attention: This decline was noticed on the water up and down the coast by recreational fishermen. The effects of this decline on predator species, especially striped bass, were especially noticed, since striped bass is a prized recreational fish – and the reason the ASMFC was created in the first place.

“Striped bass had been recovering from depletion, and many were interested and invested in this recovery,” Gordon noted. “But anglers were seeing signs of starvation and disease in striped bass, and it didn’t take long to trace many of the problems to the absence of adequate prey (menhaden) for them. That’s what led to the first cap on menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay, in 2005.”

In 2012, with support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University convened the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, a panel of 13 marine and fisheries scientists from around the world, to offer science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems. In their report, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” researchers concluded fisheries managers “need to pay more careful attention to the special vulnerabilities of forage fish and the cascading effects of forage fishing on predators.”

Since then, ASMFC staff, scientists, and advisors have been developing and reviewing a range of ecological models and management strategies. In 2012, the ASMFC voted in favor of Amendment 2, which set a new coast-wide catch limit. In May of 2015, the ASMFC began drafting Amendment 3 to the menhaden management plan, with the goal of establishing ecological management, and to review and possibly update state-by-state quota allocations.

“What’s amazing to watch over time, and I’ve worked on this for about a decade, is we’ve gone from a situation where we didn’t have any coast-wide limit at all to a question of when it’s going to happen,” says Gordon.

CONSIDERING SCIENCE

The outcome of the vote on Amendment 3 is expected to have a powerful impact on the future of menhaden, as well as recreational anglers, tourism, conservationists and larger fisheries. Yet with so much on the line, figuring out the right path isn’t so clear cut.

For one, scientists and researchers who study menhaden are at odds with each other, some saying we are at a critical juncture and must make drastic moves to manage and protect menhaden, and others dismissing such reports as hysteria.

In a Q&A with Pew Charitable Trusts, Ellen Pikitch, a marine biology professor and director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, said the state of menhaden appears to be in decent shape if you examine the population in isolation.

“But when you look at it from an ecosystem perspective—whether there are enough to feed predators—menhaden are much less numerous than they ought to be,” she said. “On the East Coast, menhaden used to range from Nova Scotia to Florida, but we haven’t seen that kind of distribution for probably 50 years.”

Pikitch led a group of more than 100 scientists who commented on the proposed Amendment 3 ERPs, and is pushing for the implementation of Option E.

But at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on October 24, fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”

Dr. Hilborn’s comments came in response to questioning from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about whether fisheries managers should manage forage fish according to a “rule of thumb” approach, where fisheries are managed according to a set of broad ecological and management principals, or a “case-by-case” approach, where management is guided by more species-specific information.

Hilborn, who was part of a team of fisheries scientists that recently examined the effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species, has expressed concern that the 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.

John Bull, commissioner for Virginia Marine Resources Commission, believes the latter. And while he’s heard environmental groups are trying to make Option E seem more palatable by saying it will result in “phased implementation,” he does not support the establishment of interim ERPs because it “doesn’t make sense, scientifically.”

“The science shows from a benchmark stock assessment a couple years ago that the stock is healthy, robust, and reproduction is good,” said Bull. “And in fact, a 30 percent increase on menhaden could be enacted with a 0 percent chance of overfishing. What Virginia would like to see is an increase in the quota on the East Coast of 5, 6, 7 percent.”

Marisa Torrieri is a freelance writer who lives in Fairfield, Connecticut, with her husband and two young sons. She possesses a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University, and has written and edited for dozens of publications, including the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, and the Village Voice.

‘Rule of Thumb’ Management Approach Is Wrong For Forage Fish, Dr. Ray Hilborn Tells U.S. Senate Subcommittee

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – October 31, 2017 – At a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard last week, respected fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn testified that fisheries managers “can do better than a one-size-fits-all” approach to managing forage fish. He also said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”

Dr. Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, was part of a team of top fisheries scientists that recently examined these issues, as well as what effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species. Their research indicated that previous studies, like a 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.

Before the hearing, Dr. Hilborn spoke with Saving Seafood about his research and his message for lawmakers.

“It’s very clear that there really are no applicable rules of thumb, that every system is independent [and] behaves differently, and we need to have the rules for each individual forage fish fishery determined by looking at the specifics of that case,” Dr. Hilborn told Saving Seafood.

He also discussed his team’s finding that forage fish abundance has little impact on their predators. They looked at nearly all U.S. forage fish fisheries, including the California Current system and Atlantic menhaden, and concluded that predator species generally pursue other food sources when the abundance of any one forage species is low.

“The predators seem to go up or down largely independent of the abundance of forage fish,” Dr. Hilborn said, adding, “For Atlantic menhaden, for their major predators, the fishery has reasonably little impact on the food that’s available to them.”

Another key message Dr. Hilborn had for the Subcommittee was that fisheries managers must determine what they want to accomplish so that scientists can advise them accordingly.

“The time has come to refocus our fisheries policy on what we actually want to achieve because rebuilding is only a means to an end,” Dr. Hilborn told Saving Seafood. “Do we want to maximize the economic value of our fisheries? Do we want to maximize jobs? Do we want to maximize food production?”

In his testimony, Dr. Hilborn praised U.S. fisheries policy that has “led to rebuilding of fish stocks and some of the most successful fisheries in the world.” He attributed this success to a variety of factors, including funding of NOAA, regionalizing fisheries management decisions, and requiring managers to follow science advice. As a result, overfishing should no longer be the top priority for fisheries managers, he testified.

“The major threats to U.S. fish stock and marine ecosystem biodiversity are now ocean acidification, warming temperatures, degraded coastal habitats, exotic species, land based run off, and pollution,” Dr. Hilborn testified. “Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of stocks but should not continue to be the most important concern for U.S. federal fisheries policy.”

The hearing was the latest in a series examining reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the nation’s supreme fisheries law. It was organized by subcommittee chairman Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and focused on fisheries science.

Watch the full hearing here

U.S. Senate Focuses on Science behind America’s Fisheries

October 26, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, chaired by Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), convened a hearing entitled “Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Fisheries Science.” This is the fourth MSA hearing held by the Subcommittee this year. A video of the hearing and witness testimony can be found here.

Witnesses:

Dr. Ray Hilborn, professor at University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
Dr. Larry McKinney, director of Texas A&M University Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies
Karl Haflinger, founder and president of Sea State, Inc.
Dr. Michael Jones, professor at Michigan State University Quantitative Fisheries Center

Dr. Hilborn reported to the committee that, “Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of stocks but should not continue to be the most important concern for U.S. fisheries policy.” And while he pointed to some positive outcomes brought by implementing total allowable catch for “individually targeted, large scale industrial fisheries,” he argued it is “totally inappropriate for recreational” fisheries.

Read the full story at The Fishing Wire

Ray Hilborn tells US Senate overfishing shouldn’t be most important concern

October 25, 2017 — WASHINGTON — A U.S. Senate subcommittee considering the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act heard additional testimony Tuesday, with a University of Washington researcher telling lawmakers the U.S. is leaving money in the ocean.

Ray Hilborn, a professor at the university’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, noted that in many cases fisheries aren’t even bringing in half of the total allowable catch in some seasons. For example, in 2015, mixed bottom commercial fishermen caught USD 65 million (EUR 55.1 million) worth of fish available in the West Coast. The total allowable catch had an estimated value around USD 168 million (EUR 142.5 million).

Read the full story at Seafood Source

National Wildlife Federation Revives Menhaden Myths with Latest Petition

October 24, 2017 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is misleading the public on the health and history of Atlantic menhaden – an economically critical fish species along the East Coast. Pushing an online petition and enlisting the help of Hollywood celebrities to call for further restrictions on the menhaden fishery, NWF is repeating and amplifying oft-repeated misinformation on the species.

Menhaden were not overharvested, and quota cuts have not been responsible for their resurgence. NWF states that “fishing pressure” had reduced the coastwide menhaden population, and the species has only begun to recover thanks to harvest reductions that went into place in 2012. Neither of these claims is accurate. Five years ago, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the interstate body responsible for menhaden management, instituted harvest cuts based on an inaccurate and flawed stock assessment. But two improved, subsequent assessments, one released in 2015 and one earlier this year, instead confirm that menhaden are not overfished, nor are they experiencing overfishing.

More importantly, the assessments also found that this is not a recent development: menhaden have not been overfished at any point in the last decade, and menhaden fishing mortality has been on a long-term downward trend and is near the lowest it has ever been. Last year, the ASMFC considered the menhaden stock to be healthy enough that they voted to raise the coastwide quota.

The menhaden fishery does not heavily impact striped bass. Menhaden are one of the many forage species that are eaten by striped bass. But recent science finds that the menhaden fishery does not have as much of an impact on predator species as commonly thought. A study published this April by Dr. Ray Hilborn and a team of fisheries scientists concluded that the size of predator populations had little correlation to the number of forage fish available to them, and that other factors, including the location and naturally fluctuating populations of forage species, were just as influential.

It also found that, specifically in the case of menhaden, that predators such as striped bass are not in direct competition with menhaden fishermen: bass typically target smaller fish, while fishermen generally catch older fish.

Menhaden oversight did not begin in 2012. While 2012 marked the first time that a coastwide quota was put into effect, the NWF is wrong to suggest that this marks the beginning of menhaden oversight. The ASMFC has monitored the menhaden fishery since the late 1950s, and state-level catch limits and restrictions were in place long before the 2012 quota.

NWF surrogates are also wrong characterizing the current debate over menhaden reference points as the menhaden fishery wanting to “remove restrictions” on the species. Members of the menhaden fishery instead support quotas and reference points for menhaden that are supported by the science produced by the ASMFC, and reflect the healthy state of the menhaden population.

Menhaden are not “the most important fish in the sea.” Credible scientists do not consider any one species “most important.” The moniker “the most important fish in the sea” was coined by Rutgers University English professor H. Bruce Franklin in his 2007 book of the same name. The phrase stems from entirely qualitative judgments made by the author that lack scientific founding. There has been no scientific study that validates this claim, and studies that have attempted to analyze how menhaden affects other species and the ecosystem, like the Hilborn et al. study published earlier this year, have found that it is just one of many factors impacting predator species.

The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Menhaden Advisory Committee discussed the book upon its publication in a March 2008 meeting and concluded, “the book should be sold as a book of fiction and generally disregarded.” There is no scientific evidence supporting the hyperbolic statement that any one species of fish is “most important,” and this phrase represents only Dr. Franklin’s opinion, rather than any scientific consensus.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition is a collective of menhaden fishermen, related businesses, and supporting industries. Comprised of 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.