March Board of Fisheries Recap

At the recent Board of Fisheries meeting in Anchorage, AMCC advocated for Proposals 163, 164, and 165 to advance pelagic trawl accountability in Alaska state waters. At the center of this work is a simple question: if Alaska regulations distinguish pelagic trawl gear from bottom trawl gear, how do we make sure that distinction is meaningful, enforceable, and trusted? These proposals also aimed to reduce the risk of salmon bycatch through salmon excluders, and build momentum and consistency for stronger action in both state and federal fisheries forums. 

This effort was not about shutting down fisheries. Instead, it asked Alaska’s management system to provide clear guidance around habitat, bycatch, and regulatory accountability, and to verify whether existing standards are being met.

• Proposal 163 proposed a stronger accountability framework by treating pelagic “mid-water” trawl as a bottom trawl unless operators could demonstrate that the gear remained off the seafloor. 

• Proposal 164 requested seafloor monitoring technology to verify compliance with Alaska’s existing off-bottom definition. 

• Proposal 165 proposed implementing salmon excluders in pelagic trawl nets in state waters, building on a bycatch reduction practice already widely used in federal waters.

  
  

We are especially grateful to our partners in the Alaska Healthy Habitat Alliance for helping advance this work. Their partnership strengthened the case for clearer standards, habitat accountability, and salmon bycatch reduction in state waters. We also thank everyone in the public who followed this issue, submitted comments, attended meetings, and helped ensure the Board heard that Alaskans care deeply about healthy habitat, responsible fisheries, and management systems people can trust.

The Board voted to take no action at this time on Proposals 163, 164, and 165. Instead of adopting the proposals as written, the Board said it wants more information before moving forward. As part of that decision, a joint protocol meeting will be held before the October 2026 work session, and it’s possible that a Board-generated proposal will be developed for the next cycle. Board members felt this was the appropriate way to carry the topic forward while still seeking the additional information they need for decision making. While this was not the outcome AMCC hoped for in this round, the Board did not close the door on the issue. Instead, it recognized that more work is needed and created a path for the conversation to continue.

A few clear themes shaped the debate. Opposition repeatedly framed the proposals as overreaching, anti-trawl, unnecessary, or impractical, rather than engaging with the accountability problem the proposals were designed to address. Monitoring technology, cost, operational variability, and feasibility were central points of pushback. Opponents also argued that pelagic trawl bottom contact is limited or not significantly harmful, that current practices are already sufficient, that Alaska’s state waters are too variable for reliable monitoring, and that salmon excluder work is still evolving and should not yet be required. These arguments reflect a familiar pattern in fisheries debates, where uncertainty and implementation concerns are often invoked to delay the adoption of clearer standards even when the core management questions remain unresolved. At the same time, the Board’s discussion made clear that these issues remain active. There appears to be genuine interest in better understanding habitat impacts, bycatch concerns, and what practical verification could entail.

Board member comments suggest this outcome should not be read as a dismissal of the issue. Member Irwin said on the record that she did not see the outcome as a deferral or delay tactic and emphasized her interest in better understanding how bottom contact and bycatch affect habitat, and how gear innovation and new technology can support fishing opportunity while still ensuring habitat protection and restoration. Member Chamberlain raised a different but equally important concern, warning against “paralysis by analysis” and the risk of studying issues to death while damage continues in the meantime. He noted frustration with how long analysis can take and observed that sometimes by the time the analysis is done, so is the damage. Taken together, those comments suggest the Board is trying to balance two realities: the need for enough information to act, and the risk that delay itself can carry real costs.

Even without immediate regulatory change, this effort moved the conversation forward in meaningful ways. It raised the profile of pelagic trawl accountability as a management issue, shifted the discussion from assumptions to verification, and reinforced the view that salmon excluders are increasingly seen as a practical bycatch-reduction tool rather than a speculative idea. Just as important, the outcome created a clear next step through the joint protocol meeting and the potential for a Board-generated proposal in the next cycle. This keeps the issue active and gives advocates, managers, and stakeholders another opportunity to shape what comes next.

Bottom line

The Board did not adopt Proposals 163, 164, and 165 in this cycle, but it also did not dismiss the issues they raised. By choosing no action at this time but calling for more information, and directing the issue into a joint protocol process, the Board made clear that pelagic trawl accountability in state waters remains unresolved. For AMCC, this is not the end of the conversation. It is a reminder that lasting progress will require strong public engagement, practical solutions, and continued work to ensure Alaska’s fisheries rules are not only written on paper but meaningful in practice.