The pushback against additional restrictions on Chesapeake Bay’s menhaden fishery is growing ahead of a key November vote, with more than 1,200 industry employees and community members urging fisheries managers to reject further cuts.

A total of 1,267 people submitted letters during the public comment period asking the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Atlantic Menhaden Management Board to reject further reductions to the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery cap and mandatory seasonal allocations. The comments come as new juvenile menhaden survey data and concerns about the economic consequences of additional restrictions add to an already contentious management fight.

The signers included 386 industry employees and 881 community members. Three letters representing menhaden workers, residents of Virginia’s Northern Neck and people outside the region opposed options in Draft Addendum II that could cut the Bay Cap by as much as 50%, link it to the annual coastwide total allowable catch or divide the cap into seasonal quota periods.

The Atlantic Menhaden Management Board is expected to consider final action on Draft Addendum II during the ASMFC Annual Meeting in November.

Survey finds strong juvenile menhaden abundance

The public comments follow new data highlighted by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) 2026 juvenile striped bass survey, which also tracks several important forage species in Chesapeake Bay.

According to data cited by the coalition, the Bay-wide juvenile menhaden abundance index has now exceeded every annual reading recorded from 1992 through 2022 for four consecutive years. The index measured 3.78 in 2023, 3.66 in 2024, 2.54 in 2025, and 2.49 in 2026. The resulting four-year average of 3.12 is the highest for any consecutive four-year period since 1988-1991.

The coalition said the findings add evidence of sustained juvenile menhaden abundance in Maryland survey waters as managers weigh the future of the Chesapeake Bay fishery.

However, the group also acknowledged an important limitation: The juvenile survey does not measure adult menhaden biomass or determine how many adult fish are available in specific portions of the Bay.

The results come amid continued concern over other Chesapeake Bay species that depend on menhaden as forage.

Maryland’s survey recorded an eighth consecutive year of below-average striped bass spawning success, although the 2026 young-of-year index improved to 5.5, its highest level since 2018. That compares with 4.0 in 2025 and 2.0 in 2024, while the long-term average is 10.8. Maryland DNR identified environmental conditions including winter temperatures, rainfall, and river flows as factors that can influence striped bass reproduction.

Workers enter the center of the fight

The latest public comments also reinforce an argument Ocean Harvesters has increasingly made against additional restrictions: that the economic consequences would extend beyond the company and its vessels.

Darawn Kenner, chief shop steward for United Food & Commercial Workers Local 400 at Ocean Harvesters and a cook aboard the F/V Reedville, responded in an Oct. 17 Richmond Times-Dispatch guest column to former Virginia Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources Matt Strickler.

Strickler has called for stronger restrictions on the Chesapeake Bay menhaden fishery and characterized the issue as one involving the interests of “one foreign corporation.”

Kenner argued that framing leaves the fishery’s workforce out of the discussion.

“The menhaden fishery is a workplace,” Kenner wrote, pointing to hundreds of union jobs in Virginia’s Northern Neck and generations of fishermen whose livelihoods are connected to the fishery.

Kenner also cited concerns raised by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that additional restrictions could disproportionately affect African American workers, union families and rural communities.

Those economic concerns were repeated in the Oct. 21 public comments. Employees warned that seasonal allocations could leave vessels and the processing plant idle during productive summer periods and shift more fishing into less predictable fall conditions. They also argued that access to the Bay can provide safer fishing conditions, reduce fuel use and allow crews to return home sooner.

The letters also argued that the economic impact could extend beyond Virginia’s Northern Neck. The fishery supplies bait to commercial and recreational fishermen, while the reduction sector produces fish meal, fish oil and fish solubles used in other industries.

Science remains at heart of disagreement

The latest arguments arrive as both sides continue to point to science supporting their positions.

Kenner noted that ASMFC’s 2025 assessment found Atlantic menhaden is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. At the same time, ASMFC’s coastwide model cannot determine menhaden abundance specifically within Chesapeake Bay or establish what constitutes a sufficient Bay-specific abundance level.

Those data gaps have prompted additional research.

Virginia has allocated $2 million over two years for research intended to help inform a scientifically defensible Chesapeake Bay harvest cap, while the federal government has committed another $2.5 million. Industry-supported projects are also developing a research roadmap and testing tagging technology. The Oct. 21 letters urged managers to allow that research to produce additional evidence before imposing another major restriction.

The discussion has also focused heavily on striped bass and osprey.

Kenner pointed to ASMFC ecosystem modeling indicating that eliminating menhaden fishing alone would not rebuild striped bass to its biomass target. Meanwhile, a 2026 peer-reviewed osprey study documented food stress and poor reproductive performance in higher-salinity portions of Chesapeake Bay and identified reduced menhaden availability as a likely driver. The study, however, did not determine the extent to which commercial harvest contributes to adult menhaden availability because of insufficient abundance data.

The Oct. 21 letters similarly argued that the osprey study does not establish that commercial harvest caused reduced prey availability or reproductive problems, noting the lack of fishery-independent monitoring of adult menhaden abundance within the Bay.

November decision approaches

The competing arguments underscore the difficult balance facing fisheries managers: determining whether additional precautionary restrictions are warranted while Bay-specific science remains incomplete and weighing those potential conservation benefits against the economic consequences for fishing communities.

The 1,267 public commenters opposed further Bay Cap cuts and mandatory seasonal allocations, instead asking managers to complete the funded research and demonstrate that additional restrictions would produce a biological benefit before putting more jobs at risk.

With the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board expected to take up Draft Addendum II in November, questions surrounding forage availability, scientific uncertainty, and the livelihoods tied to the fishery are converging ahead of a consequential management decision.