Menhaden Industry Doesn’t Meet Quota Again: Wonder Why?
In 2025, the menhaden fishery left more than a third of its quota in the water, and ASMFC’s own review doesn’t ask why. Here’s what commissioners should read before they vote.
We understand if you’re disappointed. Tens of thousands of you asked the ASMFC to leave more menhaden in the water. New York’s own Marty Gary called it the strongest public signal he’d seen in four decades of working on this species.
Even so, the Board chose reductions that will never be realized and ignored science to prioritize the profit of a single industry. The following blog lays out every motion, every vote, and what it means.
The ScienceThe Board had the official stock assessment in hand. It refused to use it for management.
Menhaden are managed with Ecological Reference Points (ERPs): fishing limits designed to leave enough menhaden in the water for predators. The ERP fishing mortality (F) target is the menhaden fishing rate that lets striped bass stay at their own target population when striped bass are fished at their target. For context, single-species reference points are about 50% higher than the ERP ones; ERPs are the conservative measure the Board itself chose to manage by.
Technical Committee projections showed that keeping the TAC at today’s 186,840 mt carried a 99.5% probability of exceeding the ERP F target by 2029[1]. A TAC giving even odds of staying at or below the target was roughly 114,200–124,800 mt, about a 39% reduction if held constant. The Technical Committee recommended setting specifications for 2027–2028 and using the 2028 assessment update to set later years.
Those projections carry real uncertainty, as every stock projection does. But uncertainty cuts both ways, and the Board’s job is to manage to the target it adopted, not the threshold.
Day 1 · The Coastwide TACFive motions. Only one followed the science, and it never went to a vote.
The Board runs on Robert’s Rules of Order. Every action starts as a motion, and it needs a second before it can be debated. From there, members can offer substitute motions. If a substitute passes, it replaces the motion on the table, and the original is gone without ever getting its own vote.
It gets confusing fast, and we don’t blame you if the flow is hard to follow. We’ve laid out this blog in the order the actions happened, so you can follow along.
| Motion | 2027 / 2028 TAC | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Original: 50% probability of hitting the ERP target | 114,200 / 114,200 mt | Never voted on |
| Virginia substitute: status quo | 186,840 / 186,840 mt | Failed 7–11 |
| Maine substitute | 170,000 / 155,000 mt | Carried 14–4 |
| Massachusetts substitute: 15% + 15% | 158,814 / 134,992 mt | Failed 8–10 |
| Final vote on main motion (Maine) | 170,000 / 155,000 mt | Passed 11–7 |
Table 1. Coastwide TAC motions, November 10, 2026.
Set the 2027–2028 TAC at 114,200 mt to maintain a 50% probability of not exceeding the ERP F target.
Supporters put it simply: The board asked for ERPs, and I think we should use them.
They described it as a phase-in of a reduction the science had already pointed to last year. New York backed it, reporting unanimous support from its Marine Resources Advisory Council across commercial, for-hire and recreational sectors.
This was the best available science, put plainly on the table. Representatives from northern and southern states who solely prioritize their industries’ profits danced their way around the most significant reduction. Thanks to parliamentary procedure, they replaced it before it ever reached a vote.
Keep the 2027 and 2028 TAC at 186,840 mt per year. A 0% reduction.
Virginia made a play to avoid any quota reduction at all. It argued the stock isn’t overfished and that the reduction adopted last year needs time to show results. That argument ignores reality: the industry never came close to its quota[3], so last year’s “reduction” was never felt. Nothing was given back. They were allowed to catch whatever they could, and they did.
Northern states argued that menhaden are critical, affordable bait for lobster, blue crab and other fisheries. Reasonable voices pointed out that status quo all but guarantees overshooting the target. The motion failed.
Both federal agencies voted yes for zero reduction and a 99.5%+ chance of exceeding the target. That’s now their record, and it should disgust you. Every state that voted yes here has an agenda other than conserving our natural resources. Thank you to every state that voted no.
Set the 2027 TAC at 170,000 mt and the 2028 TAC at 155,000 mt.
Maine framed the motion around the bait supply that keeps New England lobster businesses running. It replaced the science-based motion and became the main motion on the table. Under Robert’s Rules, that wiped the original science-based motion off the table for good.
Set the 2027 TAC at 158,814 mt (a 15% cut) and the 2028 TAC at 134,992 mt (another 15%).
Massachusetts tried to take the reins, offering a phased reduction that moved meaningfully toward the ERP target while still acknowledging economic concerns for the states that rely on heavy harvest. It would have added up to a nearly 28% cut from the current TAC by year two. Massachusetts also cited its own commercial sampling: age-2–3 menhaden now weigh roughly half what they did a decade ago. While not ASGA’s full ask, this would have been a real, tangible conservation win.
Progress was within reach. If we had woken up the next day to this motion passed, we could have felt proud of real progress for the most important fish in the Atlantic. Had NOAA and FWS voted yes, it would have passed 10–8. The federal government let us down. Take note of the states that voted yes here. They stood for positive action, and they deserve our support.
Final vote on Maine’s motion: 170,000 mt in 2027 and 155,000 mt in 2028.
With the Massachusetts effort sunk, Maine’s motion passed on the final vote and is now the coastwide TAC. This reduction, which the industry fought tooth and nail, will never be realized. Nothing was given back, and it’s an embarrassment that they’re allowed to pretend otherwise.
The menhaden industry gets what it wants: a “reduction” that still sets the TAC higher than what they harvested last year[3]. Several states aren’t even using their current quota. This is no reduction. They can expand if they desire. They sacrificed nothing, but went down kicking and screaming like the world was ending.
One line from the debate stuck with us. Virginia’s Joe Grist told the Board, I don’t like managing by feeling, I like managing by science.
So do we. The science said roughly 114,200 mt.
“I hope you make it very crystal clear to the public … why you do not support something that is our best available science.”
Marty Gary, New YorkASMFC Annual Meeting 2026
A profound line from an honest man who stood for conservation at this meeting. We are with Marty, and we want answers: why did each red no vote on the Massachusetts motion stand in the way of real progress?
Day 2 · The Chesapeake Bay CapA paper cut, not a reduction.
The Bay Cap limits how much menhaden the reduction fleet can take inside the Chesapeake Bay. Until now it was a fixed 51,000 mt. Draft Addendum II asked the Board whether to change how that cap is set, whether to add seasonal limits, and how often to revisit it.
| Decision | Option | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Cap at 13.6% of the coastwide TAC | C1E (original motion) | Superseded |
| Cut the cap by the same percentages as the TAC | 3.1 sub-option C (Virginia) | Failed 6–11–0–1 |
| Cap at 21.8% of the coastwide TAC | C1C | Passed 14–2–2 |
| 51,000 mt ceiling, no floor | C2A | Passed 13–2–3 |
| Three seasonal quota periods | B2 | Failed 1–10–6–1 |
| No mandatory seasonal quota periods | A (status quo) | Passed 8–1–7–2 |
| Revisit the cap every three years | B | Consent |
| Approve Addendum II, effective May 1, 2027 | — | Consent (VA abstained) |
Table 2. Addendum II actions, November 11, 2026. Votes shown as yes–no–abstain–null.
Option C1C first passed 15–3 as a substitute, with Virginia, NOAA and FWS opposed, then passed 14–2–2 on the final vote.
What It Means. The Bay Cap now moves with the coastwide TAC instead of sitting at a fixed number, with a 51,000 mt ceiling and no floor. No seasonal limits were added. It takes effect May 1, 2027, and will be revisited every three years.
Where ASGA Stands. A cap only matters if it limits something. This one is still set higher than the reduction fleet has been catching in the Bay in recent years. It’s a paper cut, not a reduction. We find it funny that NOAA and FWS abstained here.
Some Board members sounded more like reduction industry lobbyists than representatives of their states, insisting they couldn’t absorb cuts from the Bay Cap. But the Bay Cap doesn’t touch the TAC. It only limits how much can be taken inside the Bay. At most, the fleet fishes a little farther out, just outside the Bay, where it already fishes.
The Federal RecordTwo federal votes. A consistent pattern.
NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service each hold a vote on the Menhaden Board. Across two days, here’s how they used them:
| Vote | NOAA | FWS | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Status quo TAC (0% cut) | Yes | Yes | Failed 7–11 |
| Substitute Maine’s 170K / 155K | Yes | Yes | Carried 14–4 |
| Massachusetts 15% + 15% | No | No | Failed 8–10 |
| Final TAC, 170K / 155K | Yes | Yes | Passed 11–7 |
| Link Bay Cap to TAC cuts (Virginia) | Yes | Yes | Failed 6–11 |
| Swap 13.6% for 21.8% (substitute) | No | No | Passed 15–3 |
| Bay Cap at 21.8% (final) | Abstain | Abstain | Passed 14–2–2 |
| 51,000 mt ceiling, no floor | Abstain | Abstain | Passed 13–2–3 |
Table 3. NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service votes, November 10–11, 2026.
On the coastwide TAC, every federal vote went against deeper cuts: yes to status quo, yes to Maine, no to Massachusetts, yes on the final vote. On the Bay Cap, they backed Virginia’s weaker proposal, then abstained when the final decisions were made. It’s clear the agenda in DC favors the reduction fleet. It couldn’t be documented more plainly than on the Bay Cap substitute: every other voting party on the coast, PRFC included, voted one way. Only three votes stood on the other side: Virginia, NOAA and FWS.
What’s NextThis fight isn’t over.
Every comment period is a chance to be counted again. When the next one opens, we’ll break it down and tell you exactly how to weigh in.
If our menhaden resources helped you this comment period, here’s how to keep them coming.
In 2025, the menhaden fishery left more than a third of its quota in the water, and ASMFC’s own review doesn’t ask why. Here’s what commissioners should read before they vote.
“Too Long, Didn’t Read” Speed Summary A stock-recruitment relationship (SRR) is the mathematical and biological
Too Long, Didn’t Read Speed Summary Menhaden companies pay dues to SCEMFIS, a National Science
“Too Long, Didn’t Read” Speed Summary Both Chesapeake states reported better striped bass spawns this
We rely on our members and donations to keep fighting for a sustainable tomorrow in marine conservation.
By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies. We use cookies to provide you with a great experience and to help our website run effectively. To learn more, please review our privacy policy.