Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
05/07/2025 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB161 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 161-PROHIBIT BOTTOM TRAWLING
3:31:26 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 161
"An Act relating to the use of certain trawl or dredge fishing
gear in state water; and providing for an effective date."
3:32:19 PM
SENATOR MIKE CRONK, District R, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, paraphrased the sponsor statement for SB 161:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sponsor Statement for SB 161
"An Act relating to the use of certain trawl or dredge
fishing gear in state water; and providing for an
effective date."
In 2021, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
prohibited all chinook and chum salmon fishing on the
Yukon River due to the catastrophically low salmon
populations. In 2024, this regulation evolved into a
seven-year, international moratorium on all chinook
salmon fishing.
Due to the mismanagement and overharvesting of our
fish, the dozens of communities along the Yukon cannot
subsist on salmon, as they have done for hundreds of
generations. This same phenomenon is not just
exclusive to up-river communities; several fisheries
in 2024 were forced to close in Kodiak due to the
levels of bycatch by salmon and pollock trawlers. Over
2,000 chinook salmon were caught as bycatch and
discarded, which jeopardized the careful, sustainable
management of the declining chinook population.
3:32:49 PM
SENATOR CRONK continued to paraphrase the sponsor statement for
SB 161:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Article VIII of the Constitution of the State of
Alaska dictates that the State of Alaska utilize its
marine resources for the maximum benefit and common
use of the people, and to maintain the sustained yield
of fish and all other replenishable resources.
Over the past few decades, however, the destructive
commercial practice of bottom trawling has led to
Alaska's fish being depleted for the maximum benefit
of trawlers at the expense of rural communities.
SB 161 puts an end to bottom trawling in state waters
beginning in 2028 and directs ADF&G to study and
report to the legislature on the effects of bottom
trawling, the condition of Alaska's seafloor, and the
quantity of bycatch by species taken by bottom trawl
and dredge fishing gear.
Fishing should be an activity for all Alaskans
commercial fishers, subsistence fishers, and sport
fishers alike. Unfortunately, this will never be the
case so long as bottom trawling is permitted in our
waters. I strongly urge your support for SB 161 so
that all Alaskans can benefit from our fish resources.
SENATOR CRONK acknowledged that the State of Alaska cannot
control what occurs in federal waters but emphasized its control
over state waters. He stated that inadequate conservation
initiatives have also played a part in jeopardizing the
associated constitutional principles. Communities around the
state are feeling the effects of the state's mismanaged fish
resources. He opined that subsistence use is a low priority when
considering the use of fishery resources. He pointed out that
subsistence users are the first barred from fishing when salmon
returns become dangerously low. However, fisheries using bottom
trawl gear are left open - despite collecting tens of thousands
of salmon as bycatch and destroying the sea floor. He emphasized
the negative impact this has on vulnerable salmon populations as
well as Alaska's commercial fisheries.
SENATOR CRONK opined that SB 161 is simple and said it is a
starting point that can lead to the necessary critical fishery
reforms. He acknowledged that these changes could negatively
impact some scallop and shrimp fisheries. He said that is not
the intention. He stated that SB 161 is not perfect; however, it
will give Alaskans the chance to voice their concerns related to
these fishing practices.
3:35:10 PM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Senator Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 161:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sectional Analysis for SB 161
"An Act relating to the use of certain trawl or dredge
fishing gear in state water; and providing for an
effective date."
Section 1:
Amends AS 16.10 by adding a new section that prohibits
bottom trawling in Alaska State waters.
Section 2:
Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska and
directs the Department of Fish and Game to:
• Conduct a comprehensive study on the impacts of
bottom trawling of Alaska's seafloor and marine
wildlife,
• Provide numerical data on bycatch, by species,
taken over the last 10 years,
• Recommend to the Legislature on whether bottom
trawling and dredging equipment should be
prohibited or limited for sustained fishery
resource yield and the maximum benefit of the
people of Alaska.
Section 3:
Provides an effective date of January 1, 2028, for
Section 1 of this Act.
Section 4:
Provides an immediate effective date for Sections 2
and 3 in this Act.
3:36:49 PM
MR. STANCLIFF began a presentation on SB 161. He advanced to
slide 2:
[Original punctuation provided.]
About Bottom Trawling
Bottom Trawling:
• Is a fishing method where large, weighted net is
dragged along the seafloor.
• Is often used to catch groundfish and other
species that live near the seafloor.
• Leads to a substantial amount of bycatch -
species that were not intended to be harvested
and are often subsequently discarded.
• In Alaska, common bycatch species are
halibut and chinook salmon.
• Is very effective at harvesting massive amounts
of fish but is devastating to our seafloor and
marine life.
3:37:40 PM
MR. STANCLIFF advanced to slide 3, containing an infographic to
illustrate the seafloor before and after bottom trawling:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The Impacts of Bottom Trawling Before and After
IMPACTS:
• Serial resource depletion
• Damage to seafloor integrity and habitats,
leading to changes in fish distribution
• Changing the balance of species abundance
• Disrupting biogeochemical cycles and compounding
eutrophication
• Reducing carbon sequestration rates
3:38:17 PM
MR. STANCLIFF advanced to slide 4, containing images and a
sonograph of the seafloor:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Bottom Trawling Before and After
Bottom Trawling: Before & After
(A) Bottom photographs showing seafloor before (left)
and after (right) bottom trawling has occurred on
deep-sea coral gardens on the continental slope off
Norway. Note in photo on right the elongated trawl
mark on the seafloor, resulting from dragging trawl
doors.
(B) Side scan sonograph showing elongated and curved
tracks made by bottom trawl boards on the seabed of
Moreton Bay, Australia. Light-toned areas are elongate
trains of sand dunes.
Source: (A) Photos from UN Environment/GRID-Arendal,
Norway. (B) Image from Geoscience Australia.
3:39:04 PM
MR. STANCLIFF moved to slide 5, containing an image of a docked
fishing vessel with a red "X":
[Original punctuation provided.]
Fishery Closure: Kodiak
• Last year, two bottom trawlers accidentally
caught over 2,000 chinook salmon while fishing
for pollock.
• This led to the emergency closure of the Gulf of
Alaska pollock trawl fishery on September 25th,
2024.
• Chinook (king) salmon runs continue to decline
around Alaska.
3:39:31 PM
MR. STANCLIFF advanced to slide 6:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Fishing Closure: Yukon River
• Once strong Chinook and Chum populations in the
Yukon River are now at dangerously low levels.
• In 2021, state regulations prevented all salmon
fishing in the Yukon River.
• In 2024, a joint agreement between the U.S. and
Canada agreed to a 7-year closure of all salmon
fishing in the Yukon, including subsistence
fishing.
• Individuals and communities who have subsisted on
Yukon salmon for thousands of years can no longer
fish in their ancestral waters.
• NOAA data shows that, of the 32,000+ chinook
salmon taken as bycatch in 2020, 18,195 (56.4
percent) were from western Alaska stocks - almost
all of which were caught by bottom trawlers.
3:40:29 PM
MR. STANCLIFF advanced to slide 7:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What SB 161 Will Accomplish
Section 1:
• Bans the use, employment, and operation of bottom
trawling or dredging gear in Alaska state waters
on January 1st, 2028. (Sec. 3)
Section 2:
• Directs ADF&G to study and report, by Jan 1,
2027, to include:
o How Alaska's fish resource has been affected
by bottom trawling,
• The quantities of bycatch, by species, over
the past 10 years,
• Recommendations on whether bottom trawling
should be banned or regulated for:
• The maximum benefit of the people of
Alaska,
• The continued, sustained use yield of
Alaska's fish resource.
3:41:10 PM
MR. STANCLIFF concluded his presentation. He noted that this is
basic information that will benefit those who are unfamiliar
with bycatch and trawling.
3:41:20 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL commented that covering introductory information
is helpful for the public.
3:41:26 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR referred to slide 5 and asked whether the bottom
trawlers involved in the fishery closures were fishing in state
waters.
MR. STANCLIFF answered that he does not have this information.
He offered to follow up with that information.
3:42:10 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR referred to slide 6 and asked what percentage of
the 18,165 fish from western Alaskan stocks were caught in state
waters.
MR. STANCLIFF deferred the question.
3:43:05 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether some trawlers would be compliant if
SB 161 were to pass.
3:43:36 PM
MR. STANCLIFF replied that mid-zone trawls may be excluded. He
emphasized the ecosystem damage caused by bottom trawling and
indicated that other states and countries have banned this
practice. He stated that species that depend on the ecosystem
disappear when the ecosystem is destroyed; it is very difficult
to build the species back without the necessary environment to
support that growth. He emphasized the question of whether this
practice should be allowed to continue in state waters. He
reiterated that there is a mid-zone trawl that is mostly off the
sea bottom.
3:44:44 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked what species of fish trawl fisheries target.
He wondered if there are other fishing methods that could
replace bottom trawling.
3:45:09 PM
SENATOR CRONK answered that bottom trawling targets many
species, including pollock, rock fish, halibut, salmon, among
others. He stated that SB 161 is concerned with the overall
impact of bottom trawling on the sea floor.
3:45:49 PM
SENATOR MYERS wondered whether there are less harmful ways to
harvest those species. He directed his question to upcoming
invited testifiers.
3:46:02 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked why the changes made by SB 161 would not go
into effect until 2028.
3:46:19 PM
SENATOR CRONK said that the delay would give the industry and
ADF&G time to make necessary changes and perform any
assessments. He added that Legislative Legal Services indicated
that an immediate closure of the fisheries would be
unconstitutional.
3:46:48 PM
SENATOR HUGHES directed attention to referred to the fiscal note
from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), OMB
Component Number 2171, dated May 3, 2025. She commented that
this fiscal note is primarily associated with research costs.
She briefly discussed the use of a Camsled, which can observe
damage done to the sea floor. She commented on the connection
between disturbed habitat and disturbed seafloor. She asked if
any of the necessary research may be available from other
sources, thus decreasing potential costs.
3:47:21 PM
SENATOR CRONK shared his understanding that some research does
already exist. He added that there are other avenues to reach
these goals. He emphasized that SB 161 is a baseline and
indicated that changes are welcome. He said researchers have
been evaluating this issue for a significant amount of time and
that research should be available.
3:47:47 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI read from the fiscal note from the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), OMB Component Number 2171,
dated May 3, 2025, which defines a Camsled as, "an aluminum
superstructure with cameras that is towed across the seafloor."
The Camsled would be built from scratch specifically for the
study and would assess whether bottom trawling causes damage to
the seafloor. He noted that, according to National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), half of federal waters
already prohibit bottom trawling and one-third strictly regulate
trawl gear. He pointed out that Alaska is one state that does
not regulate trawl gear and asked why.
3:48:28 PM
SENATOR CRONK opined that money is the primary reason. He stated
that trawling is a billion-dollar business. He further opined
that, while Alaska is a commercial fishing state, the
subsistence fishery should be the priority. He noted that some
coastal communities are part of the Community Development Quota
program (CDQ), which creates financial incentive. He suggested
that the CDQ funding controls an agenda. He stated that his
priority is to ensure that the resource is protected. He opined
that the State of Alaska needs to refocus on this priority.
3:49:11 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI expressed appreciation for SB 161 and recalled
Yukon River bycatch rates for Chinook salmon at roughly 140,000
per year before those fisheries were strictly regulated. He
expressed concern about those numbers and the impact that had on
subsistence fisheries. He indicated that it is not surprising
that those fisheries have been closed for the past five years.
He asked how other countries manage trawl fishing bans. He also
asked where the United States ranks with respect to its trawl
protections compared to other countries.
3:50:08 PM
MR. STANCLIFF replied that they are beginning to research how
other countries handle the environmental concerns while
maintaining industry health. He opined that this is the balance
most would like to see. He surmised that the United States
(excluding Alaska) has a very conservative approach to the use
of trawl equipment when compared to other countries and offered
examples to illustrate this point.
3:50:58 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to a Yale study that distinguished
counties that protected against trawling and those that do not.
He recalled that the United States is near the bottom of the
list - and surmised that Alaska is also near the bottom compared
to other states. He reiterated his appreciation for SB 161 and
emphasized the importance of giving attention to the
environmental issues. He expressed hope that the fisheries can
be turned around before it is too late.
3:51:30 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL referred to slide 4 and asked if the countries
represented in the images (Norway and Australia) ban trawling.
She asked for additional information regarding the images and
the actions each country has taken with respect to trawling.
3:51:59 PM
MR. STANCLIFF suggested that, based on the image quality, the
photographs may be old. He said he does not know what impact (if
any) the images may have had on the practice of trawling in
either country. He shared his belief that the availability of
the images is an indication that trawling policies likely
changed in those countries as a result; however, he reiterated
that he does not know with certainty.
CHAIR GIESSEL said it would be interesting and informative to
have that information. She pointed out that Norway is highly
dependent upon its fisheries. She noted various historical
advisory councils related to bycatch and asked whether a trawl
ban was one of the recommendations put forth by those groups.
3:53:11 PM
SENATOR CRONK replied that he does not know.
CHAIR GIESSEL indicated that the commissioner of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) may be able to answer this
question.
3:53:19 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked if statutory change is needed or if these
changes could be made by the Board of Fisheries.
3:53:32 PM
MR. STANCLIFF shared his understanding that this could
potentially be implemented by the Board of Fisheries; however,
he opined that concern, testimony, and the search for solutions
combined with the associated statutory change would be a clear
statement of legislative support. He further opined that this
would make it easier for the department to implement those
changes. He acknowledged that the commissioner could close a
fishery via an emergency order, if needed; however, SB 161 is
considering long-term changes. He briefly commented that
disallowing bottom trawling could potentially provide carbon
credits and indicated that this could be worth losing out on the
harvest of fisheries resources.
3:54:55 PM
SENATOR HUGHES commented that fisheries can at times be a fierce
political battle. She expressed understanding that the
commissioner may desire to have the legislature weigh in on the
issue. With respect to alternative fishing methods, she stated
that there are different methods to catch all manner of fish.
She surmised that bottom trawling is chosen because it is
extremely efficient. She noted that most trawling occurs in
federal waters. She wondered what it would cost per vessel to
alter the fishing method.
3:56:14 PM
SENATOR CRONK replied that he does not know what the cost would
be.
3:56:26 PM
MR. STANCLIFF added that there have been efforts in the industry
to develop less damaging gear for use when sea floor contact is
necessary. He suggested that industry experts involved in those
efforts may be able to provide a more detailed answer related to
costs.
3:57:04 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL commented that there is also discussion about
mining the sea floor for minerals, which would be even more
disruptive to the sea floor.
3:57:32 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced invited testimony on SB 161.
3:57:54 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Anchorage, stated that SB 161 does not apply to
federal fisheries (which are responsible for most trawling in
Alaska). This legislation would close fisheries in state waters
that use trawl and dredge gear that the department has
determined makes substantial contact with the sea floor. He
reiterated that federal fisheries that use the same gear in
federal waters would remain open. He noted that SB 161 does not
define "substantial bottom contact with the sea floor." He
pointed out that several fisheries in state waters use trawl and
dredge gear that have some amount of bottom contact and could
therefore be subject to closure under SB 161: the state parallel
bottom and pelagic trawl ground fish fisheries; a dredge scallop
fishery across Alaska; bottom trawl Pacific cod fishery in the
Aleutian Islands; Dean trawl shrimp fisheries in Prince William
Sound and Yakutat; and the pelagic trawl and pollock fishery in
Prince William Sound. He stated that recent declines in salmon,
crab, halibut, and other fish stocks have raised concerns
regarding the impacts of trawling. He noted specific concerns
related to bycatch and trawl gear used in pollock fisheries and
the potential unobserved mortality of crab and herring in the
Berring Sea.
3:59:26 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that it is important to
distinguish between bottom trawl and pelagic trawl. Bottom trawl
is designed to catch fish at or near the sea floor. Pelagic
trawl is designed to fish higher off the bottom and are designed
to target a particular fish which may, at times, contact the
bottom of the sea floor. He stated that the best available data
indicate that bottom trawl fisheries have a greater impact on
sea floor habitats than pelagic trawls. The Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G), the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council (NPFMC), and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) have closed large areas of the ocean off to bottom
trawling to minimize its impact.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG went on to say that some key species
(e.g. scallops) can only be fished with bottom fishing gear. He
stated that pelagic trawls fishing for Alaskan pollock often
fish near or in close contact with the sea floor. However, the
extent of that contact - and its impacts on various species - is
unknown. He stated that those data gaps are concerning to
Alaskan and (to some extent) the department. The trawl industry
is addressing those gaps under the direction of ADF&G and NMFS.
Industry is developing a gear industry, alongside an assessment
of how much contact each gear type has with the sea bottom. In
addition, the industry is developing best management practices
for the inventory that would minimize bottom contact. He
indicated that the progression timeline of this project is
satisfactory, and an update to NPFMC is expected in June. Some
advocates would like to see further research and/or a
prohibition on trawl and dredge gear (as in SB 161).
4:01:07 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that advocates for further
research and/or a prohibition on trawl and dredge gear believe
that this gear poses a threat to Alaska's sea floor habitat and
that bycatch is contributing to poor returns of keystone species
across the state. Conversely, industry stakeholders and trawl
fishery participants consider trawling to be a sustainable and
effective fishing method that provides thousands of jobs and
benefits coastal communities statewide. He stated that fishermen
and fishery managers utilize sustainable ecosystem approaches
that effectively guard against overfishing in protected, at-risk
habitats. He stated that a 2023 review by the NPFMC and NMFS of
essential fish habitats of Alaska's fish and small fish species
determined that the negative effects of fishing on essential
fish habitats are minimal and temporary.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that more can be done to
improve available information that will help understand and
address the impacts of pelagic trawling on the sea floor. He
stated the need to prioritize efforts to more precisely estimate
the amount of sea floor contact - and determine the consequences
for sensitive habitats and benthic species such as crabs and
halibut. He clarified that he is not stating that pelagic trawls
should never touch the sea bottom; however, negative impacts
must be reduced in sensitive areas. He listed several areas that
have notable pelagic trawl fisheries - and that are already
closed to bottom trawling. This includes various crab fisheries.
4:02:55 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that all fisheries have some
degree of by-catch, as it is nearly impossible to avoid. He said
by-catch is a contributing factor; however, it does not appear
to be the greatest contributing factor leading to low-
productivity in important Alaskan fisheries. He briefly
discussed a variety of potential causes, including changing
ocean conditions. He emphasized the need for continued research
alongside efforts to minimize by-catch.
4:03:20 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the meeting.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG highlighted actions currently underway
to address by-catch and the potential, unintended consequences
of trawl gear on sea floor ecosystems in need of protection. He
said that the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC)
is addressing bycatch of species important to Alaska and the US.
He briefly described that process. He said NPFMC initiated and
adopted several actions in response to bycatch concerns. He
noted the continued and ongoing analyses of salmon bycatch and
offered examples.
4:04:45 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that in February 2025 NPFMC
reviewed the second draft of the chum salmon bycatch Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This will provide
scientific data upon which to base fisheries changes. The final
statement is scheduled for December 2025. He briefly discussed
various bycatch studies and adaptive regulations. He stated
that, in 2021, Governor Dunleavy established the Alaska Bycatch
Review Task Force. He briefly discussed establishing the Bycatch
Advisory Council in 2023. He indicated the importance of
utilizing the final reports of such councils.
4:06:03 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG briefly discussed the recommendations
for management to reduce bycatch. This includes protection of
the Gulf of Alaska tanner crab, authorization for electronic
monitoring of state-managed fisheries, and development of
abundance-based management for halibut bycatch in the Gulf of
Alaska. He provided several additional examples of areas of
continued research. He briefly described the advisory council's
current focus, which includes developing safe engagement
recommendations to identify additional ways to engage with the
public regarding bycatch. He briefly described the various ways
the advisory council will continue to engage with the public on
this issue. He stated that ADF&G will continue to take the lead
on addressing these issues through the advisory council process
and working to implement the recommendations of the Alaska
Bycatch Review Task Force (ABRT).
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG turned his comments to the impacts of
trawl gear on the sea floor habitat. He briefly discussed
research that can inform the Department's understanding of those
impacts and inform subsequent management decisions. He provided
several examples of research and potential solutions, including
research related to reducing the impact of trawl cables on the
sea floor. He stated that the advisory council is evaluating
whether further protections are needed for tanner crab. He
reiterated that the advisory council is focused on gear
modifications that would reduce the impacts of mid- and bottom-
trawls. He stated that research is underway that would inform
potential actions, and the industry is positioned to identify
techniques to utilize innovations to reduce bottom contact and
minimize the impact of pelagic trawl gear in sensitive areas. He
noted that the research is a cooperative effort between Alaska
Pacific University Fisheries, the Aquatic Science and Technology
Lab, and the Pollock Trawl --. He said this research will
provide information regarding whether pelagic trawl gear makes
significant bottom contact with the sea floor.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG opined that the best path forward is
for industry to lead the way, identifying verifiable techniques
for using gear innovations to minimize contact with the sea
floor in sensitive areas. He stated that the industry has the
knowledge and experience needed to make these decisions. He
compared this to asking those in the sport fishery how best to
reduce catch-and-release mortality. He stated that his goal is
to work with the trawl industry and other effected fishery
participants using a science-based approach to find effective,
enforceable solutions. The Alaska Bycatch Review Task Force
shares this goal and recommends agency and industry
collaborations to develop gear modifications for improved
bycatch management.
4:09:25 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that industry representatives
agree that the effort must produce results and solutions within
a reasonable amount of time. The urgency is partly driven by the
need to decrease crab mortality and increase successful
recruitment to bring health back to affected fisheries. He
stated that, if industry-led efforts fail, management agencies
will act. He said that a broader goal is to manage fisheries
with science and ensuring management approaches are sustainable.
He stated that Alaskans expect and deserve nothing less. He
acknowledged that ADF&G is deeply concerned about the poor
salmon returns in coastal western Alaskan systems. He stated
that this results in fishery restrictions and closing - which
impacts food security, subsistence, and cultural activities. He
has heard from the communities about the impact this has had. He
reiterated his concern and understanding about the negative
impact fishery closures have on Alaskans.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said there are gaps in the data
related to the impacts of trawl gear on the sea floor. He added
that there is room for further research and discussion on this
topic. He stated that the research required by SB 161 would not
be possible within the required timeframe. He added that many
types of fishing gear have significant bottom contact and
offered examples. He stated that there is little information
available to assess the impact of that gear. He stated that SB
161 bypasses the existing Board of Fisheries process, mandating
the closure of certain fisheries. This could have unintended
impacts on industry participants, stakeholders, and the economy.
He noted that, while the topic may be more appropriately
addressed at the board level, the decision is ultimately within
the purview of the legislature.
4:11:43 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR repeated his earlier questions. He asked whether
the bycatch on slides 5-6 is occurring in state waters. He
recalled Commissioner Vincent-Lang's statement that bottom
trawling is more damaging than pelagic or mid-level trawling. He
asked whether there is more salmon bycatch for bottom trawl
versus mid-level or pelagic trawls.
4:12:47 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said that a mid-level trawl can have a
greater salmon bycatch than a bottom trawl. Bycatch from bottom
trawls is generally more bottom-dwelling species (e.g. crab,
halibut, and rockfish). He said it is a catch-22, because moving
trawl gear up off the bottom could increase the salmon bycatch.
He recalled 2024 advisory board deliberations in Cordova
regarding salmon bycatch in Prince William Sound. At that time,
the board was considering the question of whether to limit trawl
gear in Prince William Sound. However, the unique shape of the
bottom of the sound meant that trawl gear was not making
contact. The realization that the trawl gear was higher in the
water raised concerns about Chinook salmon bycatch. The board
decided to cap the allowable bycatch of salmon in that fishery
(rather than close the fishery).
4:14:19 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what gear could be used in place of trawl
gear.
4:14:34 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that some species could be
fished using pot gear or long-line gear; however, it is
difficult to reach the same catch volume. He said the department
does not want to eliminate the gear type, but rather wants to
encourage responsible usage that reduces ecosystem impact and
bycatch. He said significant progress has been made toward this
goal.
4:15:16 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted the advisory council did not advise
eliminating trawling. He briefly discussed how various countries
have restricted or banned trawling because of sea floor damage.
He wondered whether the advisory committee did not discuss a
trawl restriction - or if it was discussed and the committee
decided against it - and why.
4:16:07 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG shared his understanding that the
advisory committee did discuss a complete ban on trawl gear. He
recalled concerns related to differential impacts depending on
how and where the gear is fished. He stated that the committee
did not feel a "one-size-fits-all" approach was appropriate
until additional research was conducted to discover more
responsible ways to fish with trawl gear (including a reduction
in bycatch).
4:16:46 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI pointed out that there are dozens of studies on
the impacts of midwater and bottom trawling that highlight the
damage caused to the ecosystem. He asked why this is not
discussed more in advisory council meetings. He emphasized that
ADF&G is responsible for maintaining fish and game habitat and
noted that ADF&G has not addressed this issue.
4:17:22 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that ADF&G closes trawling in
sensitive areas as they are identified. Where the habitat is
more robust and/or bycatch is lower, the fishery gear type is
not closed. He reiterated that the focus is primarily on how to
responsibly fish trawl gear.
4:17:45 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether there is technology under
development that could address this problem while allowing trawl
fishing to continue. For example, autonomous amphibious units
with sensors that could be attached to the nets and notify the
vessel of sensitive habitat.
4:18:36 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied yes. He explained that many
types of new technology exist that could be used. He stated that
a trawl fisherman does not want to make significant bottom
contact because this can result in lost gear. He said that in
most cases, there is one salmon to 10,000 pollock. He stated
that pollock fisheries make every effort to reduce salmon
bycatch, as this reduces their ability to catch their target
species. He stated that pollock fishermen dedicate significant
resources to determining best management practices to decrease
bottom contact. He reiterated that there is a great deal of
research and offered examples.
4:19:57 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many boats are in the fishery and
how ADF&G is monitoring bycatch.
4:20:20 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that there are around 100
vessels. The annual economic value is around $8 million. He said
he does not have bycatch numbers solely for the state-managed
fisheries, as they are parallel fisheries that intermix with the
federal fisheries. He said he would work to provide this.
4:20:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that federal waters require onboard
or electronic monitoring (for bycatch). He asked about similar
requirements in state waters.
4:20:59 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said the river program is the only
method available for observing trawl fisheries. He stated that
federal waters require electronic monitoring and many who fish
in state waters also participate in the federal fishery (and
therefore already have electronic monitoring equipment on their
vessels). The Bycatch Advisory Council wanted to explore
electronic monitoring as an option; however, legislative action
is needed for the board to require the use of the electronic
monitoring equipment in state waters. He explained that recent
legislation that would have allowed the Bycatch Advisory Council
to require electronic monitoring failed to pass. He explained
that there are discussions underway to require electronic
monitoring in the Prince William Sound fishery.
4:22:16 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether there are trawlers that fish
exclusively in state waters - or if all trawlers fishing in
state waters also fish in federal waters.
4:22:49 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that he does not have exact
numbers and estimated that the majority of the pollock and cod
fisheries are fishing both federal and state waters. He surmised
that some scallop and shrimp fisheries may be solely in state
waters.
4:23:11 PM
SENATOR CRONK posed a hypothetical related to fishing on the
Copper River. He asked what the consequences would be for
tossing small fish back into the river.
4:23:35 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that the consequence depends
on the regulations. He explained that if there is mandatory
retention in place, throwing fish over the side would merit a
citation. He explained that trawl vessels are subject to
citations in this case. He noted that electronic monitoring
would make observing this easier.
4:24:06 PM
SENATOR CRONK asked if Commissioner Vincent-Lang would agree
that waste is waste.
4:24:14 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG agreed and explained that the Bycatch
Advisory Task Force is working to ensure full utilization of the
product.
4:25:07 PM
JULIE DECKER, President, Pacific Seafood Processors Association
(PSPA), Wrangell, Alaska, read from the following written
testimony and added occasional comments:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA)
Invited Testimony
Alaska Senate Resources Committee
May 7, 2025
Madame Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for
this opportunity to speak with you about SB 161. For
the record, my name is Julie Decker. I am the
President of the Pacific Seafood Processors
Association, or PSPA, and I live in Wrangell.
PSPA is comprised of major seafood processing
companies that purchase fish from fishermen and
process it in 23 Alaska communities communities in
SE, PWS, Cook Inlet, Kodiak, the Aleutians and Bristol
Bay. These processors rely on almost every fishery,
harvested by almost every gear type. The health of
commercial fisheries and the seafood industry is
critical to Alaska, as it generates $5 - $6 billion in
economic activity in Alaska annually, creates 48,000
direct jobs, is the state's largest manufacturer, and
helps reduce shipping rates, for all Alaskans, due to
the volume of seafood shipped from the state every
year. It is the primary economic driver in many of our
coastal communities.
PSPA opposes SB 161, which would prohibit certain gear
types that harvest scallops, shrimp, pollock, and
Pacific cod in state waters. This bill will directly
harm Alaska fishermen, processors, and communities,
rather than manage fishery impacts. Although PSPA
opposes SB 161, we recognize and appreciate that the
bill sponsor's intent is to solve a perceived problem
that certain gear types are harmful to Alaska's
fisheries through bycatch and bottom-contact. However,
we disagree with the approach due to the significant
harm it will cause to Alaskan fishermen, processors
and certainly, communities. There are better and more
nuanced ways to manage fishery impacts, like bycatch
and bottom contact, than banning fisheries, as all
fisheries have bycatch, and many fisheries have bottom
contact.
4:27:17 PM
MS. DECKER continued to read from the following written
testimony:
[Original punctuation provided.]
I will briefly highlight our concerns with the bill,
also provided in our written letter:
The bill assumes harm by the scallop, shrimp, pollock
and cod fisheries in state waters that use trawl and
dredge gear, and bans these fisheries starting in
2028, regardless of whether the referenced study of
seafloor impacts is completed or supports that
outcome. These are very important fisheries to the
state of AK and banning them is a very significant
action. Why spend the money for the study in section 2
of the bill, if the information will not be taken into
consideration in the management of these fisheries?
Before making a major decision, it seems you would
want to collect the best information possible, then
use that information in the decision-making. In
addition, the study would need to not only determine
the level of contact with the seafloor, but also
determine whether, and to what degree, impact or harm
is done by that contact.
Fishery management issues are complicated. We have
noted several inaccurate statements mentioned today.
My colleagues and I will go back and listen to the
recording, and I personally commit to following up
with each of you with accurate information.
4:28:49 PM
MS. DECKER continued to read from the following written testimony:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Fishery management issues are complicated, which is
why the Alaska Legislature gave the authority to
manage the state's fisheries to the Alaska Board of
Fisheries, in consultation with the Alaska Dept of
Fish and Game. Over-riding the authority of the Board
of Fisheries and ADFG is poor public policy and sets a
harmful precedent. The Legislature confirms the
Governor's appointment of the Commissioner of ADFG.
The Board of Fisheries is appointed by the Governor,
confirmed by the Legislature, and is informed by ADFG
expertise, scientific data, and a very public process.
It is difficult to imagine replicating such a process
in the Legislature, through hearings or other means.
The fishery issues brought forward by the bill sponsor
are continually evaluated and addressed at the BOF.
Others will speak in more detail about some examples.
4:29:45 PM
MS. DECKER continued to read from the following written
testimony:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The bill would ban fisheries with a relatively small
footprint in Alaska waters, but that are very
important to these fishermen and communities. Alaska
already has much of its state waters closed to trawl
or dredge gear. Additionally, 61 percent of the
Federal EEZ off Alaska is closed to bottom trawling.
Even in the areas where bottom contact is allowed, the
level of contact can vary and having contact does not
convey a level of impact, in other words, whether that
impact is more than minimal or temporary. All of the
gear is very different, and this is something the BOF
has the ability to dive into for example, scallop
dredge gear may be on the bottom 100 percent of the
time, because that's where scallops live. Whereas, the
shrimp beam trawl gear used in the Wrangell fishery,
near the mouth of the Stikine River, may sometimes
touch the bottom, however, the bottom is very muddy
and constantly shifting and changing due to the
outflow of the river. Therefore, any potential impact
is minimal or temporary. I believe you have some
written testimony from these fishermen that speak to
this.
Since 2023, the Alaska seafood industry has been
experiencing significant economic headwinds due to a
perfect storm of national and global circumstances.
Revenues have been down due to unfair competition from
Russia, adjustment of seafood demand in the wake of
the pandemic and inflation, and other global issues.
At the same, costs are skyrocketing, including labor
for seafood processors increasing 50 percent between
2021 and 2023.
4:31:53 PM
MS. DECKER continued to read from the following written
testimony:
[Original punctuation provided.]
At a difficult economic time like this, fishermen,
processors and coastal communities need all fisheries
to be viable. Whether fisheries are high volume or low
volume, high value, or low value, they are all
important and provide a mix that businesses can rely
on. Diversification of fisheries and product types has
been a strategy that fishermen and processors have
used in order to spread costs across assets and
throughout the year in order to survive.
Additionally, at a time like this, policy and
regulatory stability is more important than ever. Hits
produced by fishery closures, as in this bill, cannot
be absorbed when profit margins are already this
tight.
4:32:33 PM
MS. DECKER continued to read from the following written
testimony:
[Original punctuation provided.]
The Alaska Legislature has recognized the current
economic challenges through several actions over the
last year to support the seafood industry, including
the creation of a Joint Legislative Seafood Task
Force, which heard from many stakeholders about the
challenges and potential actions the state could take
to help the industry through this period. The Task
Force meetings culminated in a final report with
short, mid, and long-term actions recommended for the
Legislature. Several of the short-term actions have
been addressed through bills that are working through
the process. Closing state fisheries is directly in
opposition to these other state actions meant to
support the seafood industry and the communities that
rely on it.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss SB 161.
4:33:21 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for recommendations to reduce trawl
bycatch.
4:33:32 PM
MS. DECKER answered that the industry is working on gear
modifications and provided examples. She indicated that the
technology is not readily available in a commercial setting;
however, efforts are underway.
4:34:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether PSPA supports whatever
mandates the Board of Fish may put forth.
4:34:34 PM
MS. DECKER replied that state waters and federal waters have
been conflated. She explained that the state water fisheries
addressed by SB 161 are relatively small compared to the scale
of the federal fisheries (in both area and volume). She stated
that the Board of Fish (BOF) and the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (NPFMC) are the appropriate bodies to address
these issues in depth, as they can undertake a detailed
evaluation of the process and concerns. She offered examples of
the questions BOF and NPFMC can consider. She stated that those
measures constitute tools that the industry can utilize, rather
than instituting a ban on the fishery.
4:35:28 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI shared his understanding that concerns
related to this fishery were discussed at a recent meeting in
Cordova. He noted that, at that time, BOF did not have access to
bycatch numbers. Some individuals raised concerns that in-state
trawlers do not have electronic monitoring. He noted that
electronic monitoring is required in federal waters; however,
statutory change is necessary to make this a requirement for
Alaskan waters. He asked if this is something PSPA would
support.
4:35:58 PM
MS. DECKER replied that she attended the meeting in question.
She recalled that the fishermen indicated a willingness to leave
the monitoring equipment on. However, she stated that it is more
complicated than simply using the monitoring equipment. She
explained that someone needs to be available to watch the film
(which is a financial investment for ADF&G). She said that PSPA
would not oppose such a change; however, she emphasized that the
necessary measures need to be in place.
4:36:35 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to SB 161, Section 1, which addresses
"substantial bottom contact." He asked what this term means to
PSPA.
4:36:45 PM
MS. DECKER answered that "significant bottom contact" needs to
be defined. She wondered if he is asking what this phrase means
to her.
SENATOR KAWASAKI replied yes. He said he is equally concerned
about the bycatch and the habitat. He asked how Ms. Decker
perceives "significant bottom contact."
MS. DECKER said this is one concern PSPA has regarding SB 161.
She noted that this phrase could impact the shrimp, scallop,
pollock, and cod fisheries. She said it depends on how
"significant bottom contact" is defined and noted that each of
those fisheries has some degree of bottom contact.
4:37:43 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what "substantial" means to Ms. Decker.
He wondered whether this means "some of the time" or "50 percent
of the time" when the nets are open and extended, or something
different.
4:37:57 PM
MS. DECKER replied that this depends on how much of the net is
touching and for how long. She said the legislature would need
to determine that definition.
4:38:56 PM
JULIE BONNEY, Executive Director, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank
(AGDB), Kodiak, Alaska, provided a brief overview of AGDB. She
said AGDB focuses first on fishery resource sustainability and
second on the health of the local community. She said that the
Kodiak marketing sector works year-round to provide products to
fishermen of all gear types across Southcentral Alaska.
4:40:09 PM
MS. BONNEY stated that Trawl deliveries allow those plants to
operate year-round and provide markets to pulse fisheries. There
are approximately 1000 to 1,500 employees per month (this number
varies by season and fish volume). Most of the employees are
Kodiak residents. Kodiak trawlers are primarily Alaskan family-
owned catcher vessels. She briefly described the process of
catching and delivering product to shoreside processing plants.
Trawler size ranges from 58 feet to 124 feet; the majority are
between 80-90 feet. She reiterated that the trawl industry is
primarily Kodiak residents, and the fishery benefits the
community of Kodiak. She stated that SB 161 would hurt Alaskans
and Alaskan communities. The position of AGDB on SB 161 is
aligned with that of PSPA and Aleutians East Borough (and is
provided in accompanying written comment). She stated that the
Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF) and the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game (ADF&G) should regulate fisheries (not the
legislature). Fishery management issues are complicated, and
this is why the legislature gave fishery management authority to
BOF. She noted misinformation related to the trawl fishery. She
stated that flat fish and/or pollock cannot be caught with any
other gear.
4:42:00 PM
MS. BONNEY stated that Alaska's pollock fishery is the second
most valuable fishery - and the largest by volume. She stated
that the Chinook salmon bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska is usually
made up of hatchery fish from the Pacific Northwest (PNW) and
British Colombia (BC), not Western Alaskan salmon. She stated
that currents and tidal changes cause more damage to essential
fish habitat than any kind of trawl gear. She stated that
experts are needed to make informed decisions. She said the
discussion related to SB 161 has confused state and federal
fisheries. She opined that attempting to override the BOF (thus
circumventing the state's regulatory process) by seeking
legislative change is inappropriate and sets a dangerous
precedent. She offered an example to illustrate how BOF
addresses these issues by considering a variety of solutions and
choosing the best option for fishery management based on
available scientific data.
4:44:24 PM
MS. BONNEY stated that, if SB 161 passes, it would override
previous management changes made by BOF and close the fishery.
She said SB 161 closes a fishery but does not determine a
problem. She opined that the purpose of the legislation is
unclear. She questioned whether the purpose is to reduce bycatch
or minimize impact to the seafloor. She pointed out that bottom
contact is not limited to trawl gear and added that the fishing
gear addressed by SB 161 has a relatively small impact in state
waters. She contrasted this with other gear that operates almost
exclusively in state waters (e.g. seine gear used in the salmon
fishery). She asserted that the metrics used to identify
substantial bottom contact or impact are unclear. She stated
that SB 161 would ban certain fisheries if the gear used has
bottom contact, even if that contact has negligible impact on
the sea floor and does not negatively impact any species. She
pointed out bycatch is part of the required report; however,
there is no nexus to understand how that bycatch would be
affected if the fleet loses access to those fishing grounds. She
stated that, if fishermen cannot follow cleaner fishing because
of area closures, bycatch increases.
4:46:00 PM
MS. BONNEY said that SB 161 harms fishermen, processors, and
communities. It also conflicts with prior legislative actions.
She expressed appreciation for the efforts to stabilize the
fishing industry; however, SB 161 would undo some of work that
has already been done to that end.
4:47:47 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted the stated preference for the Board of
Fisheries (BOF) to manage the fishery. He said that, while he
supports this in principle, he has heard from concerned
constituents who do not belief BOF has done its job. He
emphasized that, if BOF does not adequately address the issue,
the responsibility falls to the legislature. He opined that SB
161 is necessary for the legislature to consider the issue,
regardless of whether the proposed changes are made.
4:48:38 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR said he does not consider salmon a bottom fish,
although he encounters salmon as they transition to rivers. He
noted that salmon bycatch is lower for bottom trawls than
midlevel trawls. He said reducing salmon bypass was one stated
purpose of SB 161 and opined that this is admirable. He asked
how banning bottom trawls would improve salmon bycatch levels
when mid-level trawls have a higher volume of salmon bycatch.
4:49:29 PM
SENATOR CRONK acknowledged problems with SB 161, and he is open
to changes. He stated that he has had discussions with specific
fishermen and does not want to harm those fisheries. He stated
that this is impactful for every fishery. He acknowledged that
the federal bottom trawl fishery is a bigger issue; however, it
is also a concern for Alaskans. He indicated that when it
becomes impossible to pass down cultural teachings because there
are no fish in the river, the concern will increase. He said he
does not want the legislature to manage ADF&G; however,
sometimes legislation is required to make necessary changes. He
opined that the Yukon River fishery would not recover. He
emphasized that the legislature has put off the issue time and
time again and questioned how the State of Alaska would return
Chinook salmon to that river. He emphasized that immediate
change is needed, or Alaskans would have to suffer the
consequences. He emphasized that future generations would be
left with nothing and added that the lives and culture of
Alaskans is at stake. He said research and subsistence must be
the top priority.
4:51:15 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to SB 161, Section 2, which includes
the study from the commissioner of ADF&G. He noted that this
section addresses damage to the ecosystem and opined that this
is a very important issue. He further opined that the
commissioner should be responsible for ecosystem and habitat
concerns. He noted an earlier comment that questioned the
purpose of SB 161 and opined that this legislation attempts to
address both [bycatch and ecosystem damage]. He stated that he
has read the scientific data that illustrates the damage bottom
trawling has on the sea floor and noted that some level of
impact occurs across seabed types. He applauded the sponsor of
SB 161 for addressing both bycatch and ecosystem damage.
4:51:58 PM
SENATOR HUGHES applauded the sponsor of SB 161 for addressing
this issue, as fisheries topics tend to be contentious. She
expressed frustration that federal agencies are not addressing
this issue. She shared her understanding that the number of
vessels impacted is small and most of their income is likely
from trawling done in federal waters. She surmised that SB 161
would impact those vessels to a degree; however, the changes
would demonstrate that this is an important issue to Alaska. She
expressed concern about salmon bycatch and said the data from
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (which
shows a large percentage of Chinook salmon bycatch is from
Western Alaskan stock) is likely highly accurate. She opined
that remaining in denial about this is not the solution and SB
161 is a step in the right direction, although it is a difficult
conversation to have.
4:53:18 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL expressed appreciation to the sponsor of SB 161
and acknowledged that fisheries issues are emotional, as they
impact food, jobs, and culture. She said the Senate Resources
Standing Committee has previously considered studies related to
the impacts of bottom trawling. She agreed that subsistence
needs to be a shared value. She shared her understanding that
there is legislation to add subsistence seats to BOF and
surmised that this would make a substantial impact.
4:54:05 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 161 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 161 Sponsor Statement version N.pdf |
SRES 5/7/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Fiscal Note DOR.pdf |
SRES 5/7/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Fiscal Note ADFG.pdf |
SRES 5/7/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Presentation 5.7.2025.pdf |
SRES 5/7/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Sectional Analysis version N.pdf |
SRES 5/7/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |
| SB 161 Public Testimony.pdf |
SRES 5/7/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 161 |