The Bycatch Reduction Act has cleared a key Senate committee, moving Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) 's sweeping fisheries legislation closer to the Senate floor as some of Alaska’s largest pollock industry groups raise concerns about how its trawl provisions could play out on the water.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation advanced S.4938 on Sept. 16 by voice vote, with a Sullivan substitute as modified. The bill now moves to the full Senate.
Sullivan introduced the latest version of the Bycatch Reduction Act in June, building on recommendations from the Alaska Salmon Task Force. The legislation targets bycatch and seafloor impacts while expanding fisheries research, monitoring, and transparency requirements.
Among its provisions, the bill would establish standards and monitoring requirements aimed at keeping trawl nets off the seafloor, require proven salmon excluder devices, invest in salmon tagging and faster genetic sampling, expand ecosystem research, and reauthorize NOAA’s Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. It would also establish a flume tank facility to test fishing gear under simulated ocean conditions and expand public access to North Pacific Management Council processes and NOAA monitoring data.
Sullivan called the committee vote an important step for Alaskans who have pushed for action on bycatch and trawl gear contact with the seafloor.
“My Senate Commerce Committee colleagues and I passed my legislation that takes a comprehensive approach to these concerns: setting clear standards and strict enforcement measures, improving monitoring, increasing transparency, and helping test and deploy new gear and equipment that reduce bycatch and habitat disturbances,” Sullivan said following the vote.
But the bill’s advancement drew concern from the At-sea Processors Association, Midwater Trawlers Cooperative, and United Catch Boats, which represent participants in the Eastern Bering Sea pollock fishery.
The three groups said they support efforts to reduce bycatch and improve fishing practices but argue that portions of the legislation could create unintended consequences if implemented without additional scientific analysis. Their concerns center on Section 2 of the bill and proposed changes governing where and how trawl vessels operate.
The groups argued that requiring pollock gear to operate higher in the water column could increased encounters with salmon, while changes that require vessels to fish longer to harvest the same amount of pollock could increase fuel use and overall bycatch.
“Moving pollock fishing higher in the water column may reduce bottom contact, but it will increase encounters with salmon,” the groups said in their release. “Requiring vessels to fish longer to catch the same amount of pollock will mean more time on the water, greater fuel use and higher bycatch rates.”
They also pointed to existing habitat protections in the Eastern Bering Sea, saying decades of area-based conservation measures should be considered before Congress imposes additional requirements. According to the associations, scientists estimate that more than 96 percent of Eastern Bering Sea seafloor habitat remains undisturbed by fishing activity.
The opposition adds another layer to an Alaska fisheries debate that has increasingly centered on bycatch and trawl impacts.
When Sullivan introduced the bill this summer, it received support from several Alaska fishing organizations, including the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Kenai River Sportfishing Association, and Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association (ALFA).
Supporters highlighted provisions addressing data gaps, seafloor contact, monitoring, and accountability. Linda Behnken, executive director of ALFA, called the legislation “meaningful action to reduce bycatch and protect seafloor from bottom trawling.”
The legislation also surfaced during the Congressional Candidates Fisheries Forum in Kodiak this past weekend, where Sullivan and former Rep. Mary Peltola outlined different approaches to reducing bycatch.
Sullivan pointed to the Bycatch Reduction Act, federal research funding, and recent North Pacific council action, while Peltola called for changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, stronger enforcement of existing bycatch rules, and additional investment in monitoring and bycatch reduction technology.
The debate reflects the difficult balance facing federal fisheries managers and Alaska’s fishing sectors as they look for ways to reduce salmon, crab, and other bycatch while maintaining productive commercial fisheries.
