Union Fishermen Accuse Environmental Groups of Misinformation Campaign Against Menhaden Fishery
Washington, D.C. – In a strongly worded letter to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), six shop stewards representing union fishermen of United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400 have accused environmental and sportfishing advocacy groups of waging a misinformation campaign against the menhaden fishery. The fishermen, whose livelihoods depend on the industry, urge the Commission to base its upcoming decisions on scientific evidence rather than succumbing to pressure from these groups. They contend that these organizations prioritize fundraising over scientific accuracy, exploiting perceived environmental crises to solicit donations. The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC), which represents the fishermen’s employer, Ocean Harvesters, echoes their concerns.
The union representatives argue that their voices, representing generations of sustainable menhaden harvesting, have been consistently marginalized in favor of environmental groups who claim to represent the public interest. They specifically criticize the Menhaden Chesapeake Bay Work Group, alleging its members, primarily employees of the Audubon Society and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), unfairly blame the menhaden fishery for declining osprey populations despite lacking robust scientific evidence. The letter directly accuses CBF of leveraging the perceived osprey “crisis” for fundraising purposes, labeling this tactic as self-serving and dishonest.
Furthermore, the fishermen distinguish between working charter fishermen, with whom they empathize, and larger national sportfishing organizations like the American Sportfishing Association and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. They accuse these organizations of leading the attacks against the menhaden fishery, while ignoring scientific data that points to recreational overfishing as the primary cause of recent striped bass declines. This, they argue, is a deliberate attempt to shift blame and deflect attention from the real culprits.
The letter emphasizes that the menhaden industry has already made substantial concessions, reducing Chesapeake Bay harvests by nearly two-thirds since 2006 and collaborating on the implementation of science-based Ecological Reference Points (ERPs) for managing the fishery. However, they claim that these efforts have been disregarded, with the same groups continuously shifting the goalposts and demanding further restrictions, regardless of scientific findings. The fishermen express their frustration, stating that these groups seem determined to eradicate their livelihoods irrespective of evidence or common sense.
The union representatives also provide historical context, asserting that previous reduction plant closures were not due to overfishing but rather a confluence of coastal gentrification, political pressure, and unfavorable market conditions for fish meal and fish oil. They contend that during periods of higher menhaden harvests in the 20th century, the Chesapeake Bay remained healthy and productive, with the real damage stemming from factors like nutrient loading, wetland loss, and DDT. Now, with the fishery operating at historically low levels, they warn they cannot withstand further restrictions.
In their concluding plea, the fishermen urge the Menhaden Management Board to prioritize scientific data from the Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee and the ERP Working Group over the "manufactured narratives" of activist groups. They implore the Board to recognize and address the financial motivations driving these groups, urging them to protect the livelihoods and historical fishing communities that depend on the menhaden fishery. They express concerns that these groups are prioritizing their own financial interests above the well-being of the fishing communities and the sustainability of the menhaden resource. Their future, they argue, depends on the Commission’s ability to discern fact from fiction and make decisions based on sound science. They emphasize that the long-term health of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the livelihoods of working fishermen, and the integrity of the scientific process are all at stake. The fishermen hope that the Commission will heed their call and make a decision that supports both the environment and the communities that depend on it.