In the weeks following the 2025 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) annual meeting, a wave of statements from environmental and recreational fishing groups has told the public that Atlantic menhaden scientists “recommended” a 50 to 54 percent cut to the coastwide total allowable catch (TAC). According to a detailed 14-page analysis from the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition, that claim is not only inaccurate- the meeting record itself contradicts it.
Instead, the Coalition says ASMFC’s Technical Committee and Ecological Reference Point (ERP) Working Group did exactly what managers asked: they provided risk-based projections across a range of TAC scenarios, without recommending any one option. “There were no recommendations of preferred TAC made,” the Coalition reports. “The Technical Committee and the ERP Working Group supply projections and risk information; the commissioners decide policy.”
Where the 54 percent number came from, and why it was not a recommendation
The Coalition notes that the only place the 54 percent scenario appeared as a “recommendation” was when Connecticut Commissioner Proxy Matt Gates mistakenly referred to it as such while making a motion. His motion used the wording:
“The TAC recommended the Technical Committee and working groups memo…at 108,450 metric tons.” But the Coalition emphasizes, “the meeting recording shows the Technical Committee did not recommend a TAC; they provided risk-based choices including the 50 percent option.”
Those scenarios-including the 208,450 mt option- were created because the board had explicitly asked staff to model TACs associated with varying probabilities of exceeding the ERP fishing-mortality target. “None of those projections were ‘recommended.’” The Coalition writes. They were merely options.
Updated science changed the biomass scale- not the health of the stock
Another source of confusion, the Coalition says, is the 2025 single-species assessment update, which incorporated a lower estimate of natural mortality. That update retroactively rescales the entire timeseries back to 1955, lowering historic biomass and fecundity estimates by about 37 percent compared to 2022. But the Coalition stresses:
-That’s a model re-interpretation, not a stock crash.
-Total biomass has slightly increased since 2021.
-Recruitment and age one plus abundance also remained above the 20-year averages in 2023.
When commissioners ultimately chose a 20 percent reduction, they selected a TAC associated with:
-0 percent probability of exceeding the ERP F-threshold (no overfishing) from 2026- 2028
-Only 2-4 percent probability of falling below the fecundity threshold
According to the coalition, this risk profile is “nearly indistinguishable” from the 54 percent scenario in terms of fecundity protection. Commissioner Joe Grist of Virginia highlighted this during the meeting, noting the difference between a 20 percent reduction and a 54 percent reduction was only about 3 percent in modeled fecundity-threshold risk.
The Coalition argues that much of the outside messaging reflects a misunderstanding of ERP targets versus thresholds. They claim that the target is a long-term, “ideal world” benchmark, assuming fully rebuilt predator populations. Also, the threshold is the do-not-cross line that ensures enough menhaden for today’s ecosystem. They state, “Staying below the ERP F-threshold means the stock is being managed correctly for predators and for the fishery.” Under the adopted TAC, menhaden fishing mortality stays safely below that threshold. ASFMC scientists also told the board that striped bass are being fished below their own F-target while rebuilding and that there is currently enough menhaden to sustain striped bass where they are right now.”
According to the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition, the science does not call for a 54 percent TAC cut. What it provides are scenario-based risk projections- and commissioners selected a TAC that prevents overfishing with 0 percent modeled probability, maintains a very low chance of biological harm, and meets the ASMFC’s mandate to balance ecological and socioeconomic considerations.
