Menhaden and the Rebuilding of the Atlantic Fishery

The Role of Menhaden in Fishery Recovery

Once the reduction harvesting is closed, the primary objective shifts to rebuilding the fishery. A central question arises: are menhaden capable of spearheading the recovery of the entire Atlantic fishery? There is strong reason to believe they are. Menhaden have endured intensive harvesting for more than 170 years, being used for fish oil, fish meal, and more recently as feed for salmon farms in Canada. For much of this period, there were no restrictions on how many could be taken, and at one point, approximately 100 reduction factories operated along the east coast. It was not until 2013 that regulatory catch limits were implemented. Despite prolonged and intensive exploitation, menhaden still account for the highest total catch weight among fish on the east coast.

The implementation of a menhaden quota in 2013 was a reduction of about 25% in the harvest. This is believed to have caused the expansion of the menhaden range northward into the NY Bight (Montauk Pt. to Cape May, NJ and the Gulf of Maine.) The solution proposed by Paul Eidman would result in about twice as much menhaden remaining in the fishery, which would give an even bigger expansion to the Atlantic fishery. 100% of these fish would go to growing the fishery. Some would survive to expand the menhaden population. Those that get eaten, which is their main role in the ecosystem, would result in an equal weight of other forage fish, young of more valuable fish, and even lobsters from being eaten. I said equal weight but that’s not exactly the case. Menhaden are very high in energy content, about 950 Calories per pound, so the predatory fish may have to eat more of the other forage or go undernourished.

As we saw earlier, in the 1980’s, the Atlantic herring collapsed, followed by the menhaden disappearing from the GOM and the capelin collapsing in the 1990’s. Also mackerel collapsed along the way. We can’t prove a connection between those events. However, we know that fish are opportunistic feeders and that the prey they consume is relative to the abundance of the prey. Therefore, we can predict with a very high probability that the sudden infusion of over 110,000 mt of menhaden into the fishery will have a dramatic impact on the other forage fish and the predatory fish that prey on them.

The Need for a Results-Based Management System

A new management approach is necessary—one founded on measurable outcomes rather than hypotheses. The prevailing concepts of optimum yield and maximum sustainable yield require precise data for proper application, yet results from the past fifty years indicate that these methods have not succeeded. In fact, the models, based on Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment and other biological data, resulted in declining baselines, which made the new low baselines the norm. If the focus would have been on the results, management would have seen the obvious, the results did not meet the Magnuson-Stevens requirement of sustainability.

Continuous Population Growth as the Primary Metric

The new goal should be continuous population growth, with the growth rate serving as the sole metric for success. This approach offers clearer evidence of a healthy, sustainable population than current methods and is also more straightforward to measure. Catch limits could be periodically increased, provided that a target growth rate is maintained. This growth rate should continue until the menhaden population ceases to grow, at which point catch limits would be fixed, establishing a new baseline. This baseline would represent the Spawning Stock Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield (SSBmsy). It is hoped that sufficient data will be collected during the years of recovery to allow for more effective fishery management moving forward.

Potential for Population Expansion

If a 5% annual growth rate can be sustained, the menhaden population would increase tenfold over fifty years—coinciding with the tricentennial celebrations. However, growth could occur even more rapidly, and the upper population limits remain unknown.

Costs and Benefits of Rebuilding

Remarkably, the direct cost of rebuilding the menhaden population is minimal. Nature will handle the restoration process, as the necessary ecological conditions are already present. The most significant expense will be associated with monitoring and counting the fish. Importantly, unlike many fishery recoveries, no other fisheries need to be closed, except for the menhaden reduction fishery. This situation appears almost too favorable, warranting further scrutiny—echoing H. L. Mencken’s caution that simple and obvious solutions to complex problems are often incorrect.

Broader Benefits of a Recovering Fishery

A rejuvenated fishery will bring widespread benefits. The bait fishery will be bolstered by increases in herring and mackerel, while the crab and lobster fisheries may experience reduced predation from striped bass. Recreational, commercial, and charter fishermen will benefit, as will related businesses such as restaurants, motels, and bait and tackle shops.

Concerns and Challenges

There are, however, important concerns. The first is whether the menhaden population has been depleted beyond the point of recovery, particularly in light of extensive harvesting of juvenile “peanut bunker,” which are vital for the future. The second concern is whether fishery managers will have the patience to adhere to the recovery plan, especially in the face of pressures from stakeholders who may demand higher harvest limits rather than steady, sustained growth.