Fact or Fiction: Debunking Gulf Menhaden Industry’s Deceptive Claims – Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Report on Menhaden Fishery Management and Sustainable Development Goals in the Gulf of Mexico

1.0 Introduction: Assessing Fishery Practices Against Global Sustainability Standards

This report analyzes the practices and public claims of the menhaden reduction industry in the Gulf of Mexico, evaluating them against the principles of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Recent fisheries management decisions, influenced more by political pressure than scientific evidence, have favored industrial harvesting. These actions raise significant concerns regarding the long-term health of marine ecosystems and the alignment of the fishery with global sustainability targets, particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). Menhaden are a critical forage species, forming the foundation of the marine food web, and their management has profound implications for the entire ecosystem.

2.0 Case Study: Louisiana’s Near-Shore Buffer Zone Reduction

A recent and consequential development is the decision by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission (LWFC) to initiate the reduction of a near-shore industrial fishing buffer zone from a half-mile to a quarter-mile. This action was taken despite scientific data demonstrating the buffer’s effectiveness in preventing large-scale fish kills and reducing bycatch of predator species. This regulatory rollback directly challenges the objectives of SDG 14.2, which calls for the sustainable management and protection of marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts and to restore ocean health and resilience.

3.0 Analysis of Industry Claims in the Context of Sustainable Development

The menhaden reduction industry has advanced several claims to justify its operational practices and influence regulatory decisions. This section deconstructs these claims using publicly available data and assesses their validity within the SDG framework.

3.1 Claim: Economic Hardship and Job Losses

The industry asserts that the existing half-mile buffer zone curtails profits and jeopardizes jobs, implying that near-shore access is essential for financial viability. However, this claim is contradicted by official data.

• Finding 1: Stable and Increasing Revenue. According to NOAA Fisheries data, the industry’s catch volumes in 2024-2025, when the buffer was in place, were comparable to those in 2020-2021 without the buffer. Furthermore, the value of menhaden landings increased by $60 million since 2024.
• Finding 2: Increased Harvest Volume. In 2025, before the inclusion of October’s harvest, the industry had already exceeded its total 2024 catch by 93 million pounds.
• Conclusion: The industry’s economic performance appears robust, undermining the argument that relaxing conservation measures is necessary for economic survival. Pursuing short-term economic gains at the expense of ecological health is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable economic growth outlined in SDG 8.

3.2 Claim: Sustainable and Selective Harvesting

Citing a 2024 bycatch study, the industry claims its operations are selective and pose no threat to other key species, such as red drum. An analysis of the absolute bycatch numbers reveals a significant ecological impact.

• Finding 1: High Volume of Bycatch. While the bycatch rate is below the 5% legal maximum by weight, the total annual volume of non-target species caught is estimated at over 146 million fish.
• Finding 2: Impact on Key Species. This bycatch includes ecologically and recreationally important species. Annual estimates include:
  1. Over 30,000 redfish (of which 22,000 are of spawning size, illegal for recreational anglers to keep).
  2. Over 240,000 speckled trout.
  3. 81 million Atlantic croaker.
  4. 25 million white trout.
  5. 12 million spot.
• Conclusion: The high volume of bycatch, particularly of spawning-age fish and other vital forage species, represents an unsustainable production model. This practice directly conflicts with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and undermines efforts to achieve SDG 14.4, which aims to end overfishing, illegal fishing, and destructive fishing practices.

3.3 Claim: Negligible Impact on Total Biomass

The industry frequently claims it harvests less than 2% of the total Gulf menhaden biomass, suggesting a minimal ecological footprint. This statistic is misleading as it conflates juvenile fish with the harvestable adult population.

• Finding 1: High Pressure on Adult Stock. The 2024 Gulf menhaden stock assessment provides a more accurate measure of fishing pressure. Between 2013 and 2023, the industry removed 12-27% of the age-1+ biomass and a substantial 36-70% of the age-2+ (mature, spawning) biomass annually.
• Finding 2: Localized Depletion. Approximately 70% of the entire Gulf menhaden harvest is concentrated in Louisiana’s state waters. The ecological effects of such intense, localized depletion of the spawning stock have not been adequately studied.
• Conclusion: The targeted removal of such a high percentage of the adult, reproductive population poses a significant threat to the stock’s long-term stability and the health of the broader ecosystem. This practice is contrary to the principles of SDG 14.2, which mandates the protection and restoration of marine ecosystems.

4.0 Conclusion: Discrepancy Between Industry Narrative and Sustainability Principles

A review of available data indicates a significant discrepancy between the public claims of the menhaden reduction industry and the realities of its ecological impact. The industry’s arguments regarding economic necessity, selectivity, and biomass impact do not hold up to scrutiny when assessed against official fisheries data. Current operational practices and proposed regulatory rollbacks in the Gulf of Mexico are inconsistent with the core objectives of multiple Sustainable Development Goals, most notably SDG 14 (Life Below Water). Achieving sustainable marine resource management requires a commitment to science-based, ecosystem-level decision-making that prioritizes long-term ecological health over misleading industrial narratives.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on menhaden fisheries management highlights issues that are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus is on marine conservation, but it also touches upon economic sustainability, responsible production, and institutional governance.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  This is the most relevant SDG. The article’s core theme is the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, specifically the menhaden fish stocks in the Gulf. It discusses the ecological importance of menhaden as a foundational prey species, the impacts of industrial fishing, the problem of bycatch, and the need for science-based management to protect marine ecosystems.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article addresses this SDG by examining the menhaden industry’s economic claims. The industry argues that conservation measures like buffer zones threaten profits and jobs. However, the article refutes this by citing NOAA data showing that industry revenue has actually increased, thus linking the discussion of economic growth to the sustainability of the practices used to achieve it.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  This goal is relevant through its focus on the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The debate over menhaden harvest levels, the high percentage of spawning stock being removed, and the significant bycatch of other species all point to a pattern of production that the article argues is unsustainable and inefficient from an ecosystem perspective.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article connects to this SDG by critiquing the governance and decision-making processes of fisheries management bodies. It explicitly states that recent decisions by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission (LWFC) were “guided by politics much more than science or public support,” highlighting a failure of institutions to be effective, accountable, and transparent in their mandate to manage public resources based on scientific evidence.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Several specific targets under the identified SDGs are directly applicable to the issues discussed in the article.

1. Under SDG 14 (Life Below Water):

   • Target 14.2: “By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts…” The article’s discussion of reducing the half-mile buffer zone, which protects fragile nearshore habitats and reduces fish kills, directly relates to this target. The decision to shrink the buffer is presented as a move away from protecting coastal ecosystems.
   • Target 14.4: “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing… and destructive fishing practices…” This target is central to the article. The debate over harvest levels, the high percentage of the spawning stock being removed (36-70% of age-2+ biomass), and the massive bycatch (over 146 million non-target fish annually) are all issues related to regulating harvesting and addressing destructive fishing practices.
   • Target 14.a: “Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology… in order to improve ocean health…” The article repeatedly emphasizes the importance of science-based management. It cites a 2024 stock assessment and a bycatch study, contrasting their findings with industry claims and political decisions. The core conflict described is between using scientific knowledge to improve ocean health and ignoring it for other interests.

2. Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):

   • Target 12.2: “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.” The entire article is a case study on the struggle to achieve sustainable management of a key natural resource (menhaden). The industry’s practices, which result in high bycatch and depletion of local spawning stock, are framed as being in direct opposition to this target.

3. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):

   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article critiques the LWFC for its decision to reduce the buffer zone “under industry pressure” and for having “disregarded data.” This points to a perceived lack of institutional effectiveness and accountability, where decisions are not transparently based on available science.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

1. Indicators for SDG 14 Targets:

   • Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels (Indicator 14.4.1): The article provides data points that serve as proxies for this indicator. It states that the industry removes “between 36-70 percent of the age-2+ biomass.” This figure is a direct measure of fishing pressure on the mature, spawning population, which is critical for determining biological sustainability.
   • Bycatch Volume and Species Composition: The article provides specific numbers that can be used as indicators of destructive fishing practices. These include: “more than 146 million fish as bycatch annually,” “more than 30,000 redfish,” “240,000-plus speckled trout,” and “81 million croaker.” Tracking these numbers would measure the impact on non-target species.
   • Size of Marine Protected Areas/Buffer Zones: The change in the buffer zone from a “half-mile” to a “quarter-mile” is a direct, measurable indicator of the level of protection afforded to nearshore coastal ecosystems (relevant to Target 14.2).

2. Indicators for SDG 8 and 12 Targets:

   • Value of Landings: The article mentions that the value of menhaden landings has “increased by $60 million” since 2024. This economic indicator can be measured against ecological indicators (like bycatch or spawning stock biomass) to assess the decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation (Target 8.4).
   • Volume of Landings: The article notes that the industry’s 2025 catch has “already exceeded its 2024 catch by 93 million pounds.” This is a direct indicator of resource extraction levels, relevant to the sustainable management of natural resources (Target 12.2).

3. Indicators for SDG 16 Targets:

   • Alignment of Policy with Scientific Advice (Implied): While not a formal UN indicator, the article implies one could measure the extent to which management decisions (like the LWFC vote) align with or disregard scientific data (from stock assessments and bycatch studies). The article presents a case where the decision “disregarded data,” indicating a failure of institutional effectiveness (Target 16.6).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: trcp.org