By Charlotte Levy/Anchorage Daily News – January 29, 2026
As a fishery analyst for the Aleutians East Borough, I am uniquely positioned at the busy intersection where fishermen, fishing communities, processors, managers, researchers and policymakers all meet. Alaska fisheries are complicated and highly nuanced, and most who work in fisheries would agree.
So when I read an opinion recently published by two of our own state legislators, “Trawl bycatch may not be the sole cause of Alaska salmon declines, but it’s one of the few things we can control,” I was disheartened to see yet another oversimplification of a complex fisheries issue.
To any layperson, the article reads as a sincere effort to use legislative power as a force for good. But for those with a true understanding of these issues, the article is confusing at best and manipulative at worst. The authors clearly emphasize the primary concern of the article is industrial trawl bycatch to promote their two companion bills, Senate Bill 161 and House Bill 203, which seek to prohibit trawling that makes “substantial” contact with the bottom. I’ll note that there is significant discussion happening on how to define “substantial” bottom contact. But without a clear, evidence-based definition, the term “bottom trawl” is being used to conflate bottom trawl gear with pelagic trawl gear, which operate very differently. For that reason, I will talk about both.
Our legislators may not realize it, but they’re not actually affecting industrial factory trawlers with this bill. An honest conversation requires transparency about who will be most impacted, and it isn’t out-of-state factory trawlers; it’s Alaskans in Gulf of Alaska communities. Primarily, local people who operate small pot/trawl vessels homeported in Sand Point and King Cove have a long-term dependence on the South Alaska Peninsula pollock and cod fisheries. These are multi-generational fishermen living in remote coastal communities, whose only economy is fishing. We are already seeing the devastation King Cove has suffered from the loss of fish processing in their community.
What the article also fails to mention is that the majority of state waters are already closed to bottom trawling. One exception are the small, but critically important, state waters opened to trawling that support small boat fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska on the Alaska Peninsula, in conjunction with federal fisheries and subject to all the same rules. This might seem like a technicality, but the context matters.
The South Alaska Peninsula Pacific cod fishery is one of the few areas in state waters open to bottom trawling and access is restricted to vessels that are less than 58 feet, a measure established in 2010 to protect these small vessels. This fishery is almost entirely fished by small local vessels from Sand Point and King Cove on their historical fishing grounds, and delivered to shore-based processors in Alaska communities. The South Alaska Peninsula pollock fishery is also an Alaska-based fishery. ADF&G data show on average in the last 10 years, 95% of harvest from state waters came from this local fleet. And nearly all of their catch in the winter (the most important season) comes from state waters. These are critical fisheries to keep this region alive.
The reason small vessels need access to these state waters is that they simply cannot compete with larger vessels in federal waters, all of which are fishing off the same small Gulf of Alaska quota. Larger vessels (the ones you picture when you think “trawler”) have more options offshore in federal waters since they can handle rougher weather, whereas small vessels need state waters as a refuge. And with twice the capacity, larger vessels can harvest more fish at a faster rate than small vessels.
Responsible development means honestly evaluating risk, benefits and tradeoffs. Bycatch is an inherent risk across all gear types, each of which requires a thoughtful, tailored solution. Alaska already has the regulatory authority to respond without legislative intervention, using a robust public process that allows for a detailed exploration of nuanced fishery issues guided by subject-matter experts. Glossing over the details has resulted in a misguided bill that does little to achieve its intended goal, demonstrating the Legislature is not the appropriate body to make these decisions. This bill only serves to put local Alaskans out of business, but you know who it won’t hurt? Industrial factory trawlers. I would call on our lawmakers to carefully consider the Alaskans who will be impacted by this bill, or better yet, leave fisheries management to the experts.
