ASMFC's Economists Identified the Risks; Civil-Rights and Labor Groups Identified Who Would Bear Them

WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / October 28, 2026 / Some recreational fishing organizations treat their jobs as more important than those of the men and women who harvest and process menhaden. They invoke estimates of billions of dollars in recreational fishing activity involving menhaden as bait while dismissing the reduction fishery's economic contribution. They use economic estimates to advocate reallocating menhaden harvest toward recreational interests, while some have separately called for eliminating reduction fishing in the Chesapeake Bay. Neither argument is supported by an economic analysis demonstrating that such restrictions would increase bait supplies, recreational spending or employment. Their approach stands in sharp contrast to warnings from the Virginia NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 400, AFL-CIO, about the consequences of further restrictions for working families.

In a September 18, 2025 letter to President Donald Trump, CCA Virginia, the Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association and seven other angling clubs accused the menhaden reduction fishery of depleting the Chesapeake Bay of menhaden, harming striped bass and ospreys, and threatening thousands of recreational and tourism jobs, without demonstrating that the reduction fishery caused those harms, while dismissing the industry's contribution as merely "a few hundred jobs." They urged an executive order ending reduction fishing in the Bay. To his credit, President Trump and his administration have emphasized support for both commercial and recreational fishing through his April executive order on seafood competitiveness and his September executive order on saltwater angling and recreation.

"Few hundred jobs" ignores the fishery's wider footprint. A 2026 review by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (the ASMFC) Committee on Economics and Social Sciences cited an earlier economic study estimating 519 full- and part-time jobs supported in Maryland and Virginia, including 347 in Northumberland County. The ASMFC's economists warned of few comparable local jobs, structural unemployment and disproportionate losses-including shutdown-if quotas fall below a minimum operating volume.

In Virginia's Northern Neck, the fishery supports multigenerational union jobs, including for African American families. In a letter to Maryland Governor Wes Moore, the SCLC urged consideration of economic justice, wages, benefits and dignity. In an October 20 letter to Governor Abigail Spanberger, Virginia NAACP President Rev. Cozy Bailey emphasized health insurance, retirement, family stability and scarce replacement jobs. UFCW Local 400 documented the minority workforce, family ties and safety reasons offshore fishing cannot always replace Bay access. In an October 27 statement, the union urged the ASMFC to refrain from imposing additional Chesapeake Bay menhaden restrictions until ongoing research establishes their necessity, warning that "Working families should not be forced to bear the economic consequences of decisions made without a full understanding of their impact."

Yet CCA Virginia, CCA Maryland, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have supported Addendum II proposals that include cutting the Chesapeake Bay Cap by as much as 50% and imposing seasonal restrictions, without addressing employee benefits, replacement jobs or structural unemployment.

What Southwick's numbers do-and do not-show

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) hired Southwick Associates, a Colorado firm specializing in producing economic studies for hunting, shooting, sportfishing and outdoor recreation interests. Its 2026 report estimated that 2025 Atlantic trips involving menhaden supported $804 million in spending, 7,270 jobs and claimed a whopping $1.56 billion in total economic contributions.

In TRCP's June 2026 announcement of the study, Southwick economist Ben Scuderi explained that the study cast its net widely counting "the full spectrum of spending that occurs for fishing trips where menhaden are used as bait, from direct purchases of equipment, food, fuel, and the many other items needed for a day of fishing, to the downstream effects that spending has on retailers, manufacturers, and countless other businesses," which resulted in the calculation of "more than $1.5 billion" in annual output.

Southwick's economic calculations began with estimates from NOAA's national recreational fishing expenditure survey. NOAA asked anglers to recall and estimate their spending on fishing trips, including transportation, hotels, restaurant meals and other expenses. NOAA's expenditure estimates could include hotel stays, restaurant meals and other expenses from longer vacations in which fishing was only one activity, even when those expenses would have occurred without the fishing trip. NOAA then used statistical sampling weights, estimates of fishing activity and assumptions about anglers who did not respond to calculate average expenditures per fishing day. The resulting figures were themselves estimates derived from multiple calculations and assumptions, rather than direct measurements of spending by all recreational anglers.

Southwick built another series of estimates on top of those NOAA figures. Southwick based its estimates on the recollections of 1,316 self-selected participants in a paid online survey panel, rather than a probability-based random sample of Atlantic recreational anglers. The participants recalled how frequently they had used menhaden as bait, chum or scent attractant. Southwick assumed their responses could be applied to the broader population of Atlantic recreational anglers and used them to estimate nearly 13.9 million fishing days involving menhaden. Applying NOAA's average recreational fishing expenditures to those estimated days, Southwick calculated $804 million in spending. It then used economic multipliers to estimate $1.56 billion in economic output and 7,270 supported jobs. Thus, a vacation that included a single day of fishing with menhaden could contribute hotel, restaurant and transportation expenditures to Southwick's calculations even if the vacation would have occurred anyway. These successive estimates and assumptions do not establish how much spending actually depended on menhaden, much less demonstrate that restricting commercial menhaden fishing would increase recreational spending or employment.

Referencing that possibly overstated number, American Sportfishing Association policy director Mike Waine claimed recreational spending had "not resulted in meaningful consideration of the recreational sector's needs." Yet the ASMFC has clearly responded to the arguments of the recreational community. The Commission adopted Amendment 3 in 2017 and Addendum I in 2022, revising allocations and bait-fishery provisions. Recreational and conservation groups also championed the ASMFC's adoption of predator-protecting ecological reference points and celebrated their adoption in 2020. TRCP president Whit Fosburgh called it a "landmark decision"; the association's Mike Leonard, then vice president of government affairs, praised the "science-based management we look for"; and CCA Maryland's David Sikorski welcomed a "more holistic approach."

Large national estimates of recreational fishing activity do not make rural union jobs expendable. Proponents of restrictions should demonstrate concrete economic benefits and account for workers and communities facing the losses.

Neither the Southwick study nor the organizations citing it have demonstrated that additional restrictions on commercial menhaden fishing would create jobs or produce any corresponding economic benefit. Southwick acknowledges on page 27 of their report that its estimates do not establish how much recreational spending actually depends on access to menhaden. The study also makes no attempt to calculate whether eliminating the reduction fishery would increase bait availability, recreational spending or employment.

Previous scrutiny of Southwick studies

Southwick Associates has faced criticism in the past for economic studies that critics argue overstated the benefits attributable to the industries and activities being examined. Those criticisms are particularly relevant because they include an earlier Southwick study of menhaden, published in 2006, that raised questions similar to those surrounding its latest report.

The ASMFC's 2007 review of Southwick's 2006 "Menhaden Math" study recorded economist Peter Schuhmann's criticism of menhaden research, including omission of commercial predator fisheries and menhaden-product benefits, and no demonstration of how economic values change with menhaden abundance, distribution or harvest.

A 2013 PolitiFact documented a Wisconsin official's doubts about hunting estimates; Rob Southwick acknowledged the sample was inadequate for some state comparisons. In a 2017 independent critique commissioned by Humane Society International, economist Cameron Murray argued that a Southwick trophy-hunting study overstated marginal contributions by including spending that could occur without hunting. These critiques warrant scrutiny, not allegations of manipulation.

About the American Small Pelagics Network
The American Small Pelagics Network represents fishermen, processors, suppliers, and coastal communities connected to fisheries such as menhaden, mackerel, herring, squid, and butterfish. ASPN supports sustainable fisheries management that supports critical fish species, while maintaining economic opportunities for fishermen and fishing communities.

Press Contact
Stove Boat Communications
(202) 595-1212
contact@smallpelagics.com

SOURCE: American Small Pelagics Network



View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire