American Marconi Wireless News - ASGA's Attack on Menhaden Science Exposes Its Own Double Standard

WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / November 2, 2026 / The American Saltwater Guides Association (ASGA) set out to expose what it called "tainted influence" over scientific research used to manage Atlantic menhaden. Instead, its own investigation produced an admission that undermines its attack: "We found no evidence that industry money changed a result."

That finding matters more than ASGA's insinuations. ASGA reviewed 12 Atlantic menhaden and forage projects and papers it could tie to the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS). By ASGA's own count, eight were not used in the assessments, three were cited, and one became a base-model input. The one direct input - a fecundity study - disclosed its SCEMFIS funding, went through the assessment and independent review process, and did not change whether the stock was classified as overfished.

In other words, ASGA went looking for evidence that industry funding had corrupted menhaden science and reported that it found none.

What ASGA's Own Review Found

SCEMFIS is a member of the National Science Foundation's Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers program, in which participating companies help select research priorities and provide funding. Its bylaws spell out the membership and voting structure. That relationship is not hidden, and neither was the funding of the fecundity research that ASGA singled out.

The Atlantic menhaden assessment and peer-review record identifies the SCEMFIS support. ASGA itself acknowledges that the independent review accepted the work and that the change did not alter the stock status determination. Its article cites no manipulated finding, no suppressed result and no example in which an industry payment changed a scientific conclusion.

Disclosure is useful, but disclosure is not the same thing as evidence of scientific misconduct. And a standard based on who provided money has to be applied consistently.

ASGA's Own Funding and the Conservation-Research Connection

ASGA is itself funded by organizations with strong conservation policy agendas. The Natural Resources Defense Council's 2020 IRS filing reports a $30,000 grant to ASGA for "ENV. ADVOCACY." The Nature Conservancy's IRS filing reports a $65,000 grant to ASGA for "CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES."

ASGA also directly supports scientific research. A 2026 peer-reviewed study of postrelease survival in little tunny states that the work was "primarily supported by the American Saltwater Guides Association," alongside support from NOAA and other organizations. Advocacy organizations, industry groups, foundations and government agencies all fund research. The relevant questions are whether the funding is disclosed, whether the methods withstand scrutiny and whether the work survives scientific review.

That is exactly why ASGA's treatment of SCEMFIS is so selective. It treats commercial industry support as a reason to cast suspicion on scientists, while treating conservation funding and advocacy relationships as ordinary.

Ault, Chiles and a Standard That Should Work Both Ways

The same inconsistency appears in the broader conservation research network surrounding Dr. Jerald Ault. A 2017 Marine Stewardship Council assessment identifies Ault and conservation advocate W. Benson Chiles as participants representing the Menhaden Conservation Project and describes the project as funded by the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a network of recreational fishers on the U.S. East Coast.

A separate 2022 peer-reviewed paper coauthored by Ault and Jiangang Luo acknowledged research support from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Chiles's Founding Fish Network, the Buchanan Family Foundation and other governmental, nonprofit and private funders for research on southern Florida coral reef fisheries.

While that was not the 2024 Atlantic menhaden mortality paper, the relationship is nevertheless relevant to ASGA's claimed principle. The ASMFC's November 2024 Methods Workshop summary on menhaden lists both Ault and Chiles among the public attendees while the Stock Assessment Subcommittee examined Ault's reanalysis of historical menhaden tagging data.

Ault and Luo's 2026 Atlantic menhaden paper declares no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work. And we make no suggestion that that conservation funding improperly influenced Ault's research.

But neither does commercial fishing industry support establish that SCEMFIS researchers compromised their scientific work. ASGA cannot reasonably demand that industry relationships be treated as a cloud over the science while treating comparable advocacy and funding relationships as irrelevant when they point in the opposite policy direction.

Respected Scientists, Necessary Research

The credibility of scientific research should be judged by its methods, evidence, transparency and independent review - not by whether its financial supporters are commercial fishermen or conservation advocates.

That standard protects everyone. Industry-supported research should be disclosed and scrutinized. So should research and advocacy relationships involving conservation groups. Funding is context; it is not a substitute for examining the science.

ASGA is free to argue for broader disclosure rules across the scientific community. What it cannot credibly do is use disclosed industry support to insinuate compromised science while ignoring the funding and organizational relationships on its own side of the policy debate. That is precisely the double standard ASGA's attack exposes.

ASGA's own investigation found no evidence that industry funding changed a scientific result. That should have been its headline.

Sources

1. American Saltwater Guides Association. (October 28, 2026). Who Pays for Menhaden Science? Part 1 - Conflicts of Interest.

2. Science Center for Marine Fisheries. (March 2026). SCEMFIS Bylaws, especially PDF p. 7.

3. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission / SEDAR. Atlantic Menhaden Single-Species Assessment and Peer Review Reports, cited assessment discussion of fecundity research and funding.

4. Natural Resources Defense Council. (2020). IRS Form 990, Schedule I, PDF p. 52 ($30,000 to ASGA; purpose: ENV. ADVOCACY).

5. The Nature Conservancy. (Tax year 2022-2023). IRS Form 990, Schedule I, PDF p. 59 ($65,000 to ASGA; purpose: CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES).

6. Kneebone, J., et al. (2026). Postrelease Survival of Little Tunny Euthynnus alletteratus in a Recreational Fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 46(2), 535-550.

7. SAI Global. (2018). Marine Stewardship Council Full Assessment: U.S. Atlantic Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery, consultation record at PDF p. 134.

8. Ault, J. S., et al. (2022). Length-based risk analysis of management options for the southern Florida USA multispecies coral reef fish fishery. Fisheries Research, 249, 106210.

9. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. (November 2024). Atlantic Menhaden SAS and ERP Workgroup Methods Workshop II Summary, PDF pp. 1-2.

10. Ault, J. S., & Luo, J. (2026). Investigation of Atlantic menhaden mortality rates. Fisheries Research, 303, 107865.

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 advocates for 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
[email protected]

SOURCE: American Small Pelagics Network

View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

F.Dubois--AMWN