Separating Fact From Fiction on Pelagic Trawl Gear
By: Matt Tinning, Chief Executive Officer, At-Sea Processors Association (APA)
June 3, 2026
The Alaska pollock catcher-processor fleet that I’m proud to represent has been at the global forefront of sustainability and innovation for decades. Recently, however, it has been attacked for operating fishing gear that makes contact with the seafloor. For those interested in learning more about this issue, here are some detailed answers to four key questions.
1. What is “pelagic trawl gear”, and why and how do Alaska pollock fishermen use it?
For those outside the industry, it’s almost impossible to grasp the size and scale of the Eastern Bering Sea Alaska pollock fishery. Pollock spawn in huge numbers in the Bering Sea’s highly productive marine ecosystem. For more than four decades, fishermen have harvested almost three billion pounds of Eastern Bering Sea pollock per year and the stock has remained stable, healthy and productive. This single fishery is responsible for more than one-third of America’s wild seafood production — 3.5 billion meals per year.
To harvest fish at this scale, huge trawl nets are required. In the fishery’s early days, most pollock nets were configured as bottom trawls. But this fishing method captured large numbers of bottom-dwelling species as bycatch — including commercially-valuable halibut and crab.
As a result, in the 1990s regulators banned bottom trawling for pollock. Fishermen shifted to alternative trawl gear capable of being fished throughout the water column (the “pelagic zone”) with far lower rates of crab and halibut bycatch. Instead of deploying trawls with bobbins, rollers or discs on the footrope and moving constantly along the seafloor, these pelagic trawl nets were designed to operate in the open ocean. This shift was possible because, although bottom trawl gear had previously been efficiently targeting large schools of pollock near the seafloor, pollock aren’t a “benthic” species like a crab, eelpout, flounder or sole: they don’t live on the ocean bottom. That makes pelagic trawl gear viable, allowing fishermen to target swimming schools of pollock at any depth where they can be found.
Pelagic trawl gear is fundamentally different from bottom trawl gear. To deploy a pelagic trawl, an elliptical-shaped footrope is forced downward through the water column by clump weights. In the process, extreme tension builds on the upper portion (bridles) of the gear, forcing the net to spread downward. Immediately behind the footrope is the forward mesh. This mesh features extremely large openings that allow many non-pollock species to escape. Pollock, however, instinctively herd along the net’s cone-shaped funnel to the codend. This back portion of the net has small mesh openings that securely capture the pollock.
Rather than deploying horizontally, like a wind sock, pelagic trawl gear is designed to taper upwards. The length of the net extends up behind the footrope in a kite-like formation, with the codend trailing up above the footrope and forward mesh.
Through many years of innovation and refinement, pelagic trawl gear on our vessels has been calibrated to maximize catch efficiency. This matters: less time spent on the fishing grounds translates directly into improved environmental performance—minimizing bycatch, reducing habitat disturbance, and lowering the amount of fuel our vessels use. Our sector is committed to continuous improvement, and research and innovation is continuing to further optimize our gear for environmental performance.
In the 1990s, however, the specific conservation objective that regulators sought to advance through the transition to pelagic trawl gear was to reduce halibut and crab bycatch. At first, that objective was frustrated by some rogue pollock harvesters. While many fishermen embraced the new rules, some modified their existing bottom trawl gear to meet the legal definition of “pelagic trawl” while continuing to fish the new gear as a bottom trawl, dragging it along the seafloor. This led to continuing high halibut and crab bycatch rates, undermining management objectives. Regulators sought to stamp out this evasion by creating a “performance standard”. The performance standard capped the number of crab that a pollock vessel could have on board at 20. If the cap was breached, regulators would assume that the new gear was being fished improperly, and violations would be issued. The rogue fishermen were thus forced into line, and halibut and crab bycatch rates plummeted. Although the performance standard remains in federal regulations, it has served its purpose and is functionally obsolete.
2. What impact does pelagic trawl gear have on seafloor habitat?
Environmental activists have recently sought to present the transition to pelagic trawl gear and the creation of a performance standard as an effort to protect the seafloor habitat. The historical record is crystal clear that this is false: regulations establishing the performance standard include absolutely no mention of concern for benthic habitat impacts related to bottom contact. Nonetheless, the question of our fishing gear’s impact on the seafloor is a critically important one.
When a tow targets pollock schools near the ocean bottom, our gear’s clump weights and footrope make some contact with the seafloor. The gear does not “drag the bottom”. Rather, as the gear moves rapidly through the water above the uneven ocean floor, the clump weights and parts of the footrope make intermittent seafloor contact. The remainder of the gear tapers up, well above the seafloor. On other tows, pollock swimming higher in the water column are targeted, and no bottom contact occurs.
How often does pelagic trawl gear target pollock schools near the seafloor? Fishermen and scientists alike know that pollock often aggregate in large numbers near the ocean bottom. But the precise depth at which pollock school depends on a variety of factors, including age (younger pollock live higher in the water column), season (pollock are found closer to the seafloor during the summer months), and time of day (pollock move further off the bottom at night). Furthermore, different skippers and fleets operate differently in varying ocean environments. In the Gulf of Alaska, for example, catcher vessels rarely target pollock near the Gulf’s very deep ocean bottom or in known rocky and rough bottom habitats. For Eastern Bering Sea catcher-processor vessels, however, it’s clear that plenty of our fishing targets schools near the seafloor, on the muddy and sandy shallows of the continental shelf.
In 1996, Congress enacted landmark changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including new requirements to conserve Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). When the North Pacific Fishery Management Council began implementing those requirements, new efforts were made to understand pelagic trawl gear’s interaction with the seafloor. United Catcher Boats developed a white paper that was considered in public session by the Council and used to inform new benthic habitat modeling work by scientists. This modeling work became the “Long-term Effect” Index (LEI), the precursor to today’s Fishing Effects Model. In words that remain true today, the white paper noted:
In reality, bottom contact ranges from footropes fished fully off-bottom to fully on-bottom. Fishing practices, in regards to the degree of bottom contact, varies greatly from vessel-to-vessel, area-to-area, time-of-day, and time-of-year.
The white paper went on to assign separate average estimates to Eastern Bering Sea pollock tows that occurred during the day (when pollock move closer to the seafloor) and at night. For daytime fishing, they estimated that the footrope made at least some contact with the seafloor during 80% of tows, while 20% made no contact. During nighttime fishing, they estimated that 60% of tows made at least some contact with the seafloor, while 40% made no contact. Since fishing effort was evenly distributed between day and night, 70% of total tows were estimated to make some contact with the seafloor. They also noted uneven contact with the seafloor by the footrope, and made estimates as to how much of the footrope contacted the seafloor when being fished. This led to an overall footrope bottom contact estimate of 44.5%.
It’s important to note these estimates were not based on any empirical evidence or field studies. Rather, they reflected the opinions of fishing captains and others with operational expertise on the gear’s deployment. In 2019, an Alaska Pacific University Masters student completed a thesis that remains the only pertinent field study that has been conducted to date across our fleet. Vessel operators were instructed to fish the pelagic trawl gear “hard on bottom”. Researchers then measured bottom contact using an altimeter sensor affixed to the footrope. Based on that research, estimates of seafloor contact by the footrope across the entire area swept were between 14.5% and 26.8%. This important empirical research suggests that the 2002 estimates–and subsequent estimates gleaned by researchers from surveys of catcher/processor vessel captains–may be too high. APA is encouraging and supporting additional research.
Yet far more important than quantifying bottom contact is assessing and responding to its impacts. As referenced above, throughout this century fishery managers in the North Pacific have evaluated the effects of fishing on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) using one of the most comprehensive habitat assessment frameworks in global fisheries management. The North Pacific region benefits from extensive benthic habitat mapping, detailed spatial fishing effort data, and long-standing scientific review processes that collectively provide managers with a robust understanding of fishing interactions with seafloor habitats. Federal fishery stakeholders in the North Pacific region should be proud to be setting the global gold standard in this area, and confident that fishery regulations are based upon and responsive to some of the best benthic habitat science conducted anywhere in the world.
The EFH review process requires scientists and regulators to carefully evaluate the impact of fishing on habitat, looking at 103 managed species across three large marine ecosystems spanning almost one million square miles of ocean off Alaska’s coast. As part of these EFH reviews, scientists estimate the percentage of benthic habitat “disturbed’ by fishing activity. A finding that an area is “undisturbed” means that scientists believe its current ecological status is the same as what would be found if no fishing had occurred.
Looking across all U.S. waters under the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s jurisdiction, scientists estimate that 96.1% of seafloor habitat is undisturbed by fishing activity – one of the highest rates anywhere in the world. In the Eastern Bering Sea, it is estimated that 94.8% of the continental shelf above a depth of 1,000 meters is undisturbed by fishing activity (regardless of gear type)--a far higher percentage than other areas globally where significant fishing activity is occurring.
Trawling on the Eastern Bering Sea continental shelf occurs in areas that are overwhelmingly sandy and muddy bottom. These are naturally dynamic environments where storms and other forceful ocean movements churn the seafloor. Peer reviewed science shows that in many instances trawled areas of the Eastern Bering Sea quickly become indistinguishable from untrawled areas. This reality largely explains why the “undisturbed” area estimate for this intensively fished area is so high.
Where trawling has the potential to have a more lasting impact – on benthic animals or higher-value habitats – the North Pacific fishery management process is extremely robust and highly responsive. Area-based management measures have been established throughout the North Pacific, implemented to achieve specifically defined objectives. These measures range from temporal limitations on the use of specific gear types to year-round closures to all fishing activity. In this way, high-value benthic habitat is identified and protected. With such measures in place, scientists have consistently found through EFH reviews that adverse effects from fishing on seafloor habitats are temporary and minimal.
With millions of dollars at their disposal, anti-fishing activists are urging Alaskans to imagine trawl nets off their coasts mowing down the marine equivalent of virgin rainforests. This activist narrative is fiction, pure and simple. The Alaska Region’s world class science and management system is carefully quantifying, analyzing and responding to the impacts of fishing gear on seafloor habitats. With an extraordinarily robust science and management framework in place, we can take great pride in this true fact: the environmental footprint of wild Alaska pollock is lower than for any other widely available animal protein on the planet.
3. Why can pelagic trawl gear operate in some areas of the Eastern Bering Sea that are closed to bottom trawling?
Another question raised about pelagic trawling is why it can operate in some areas closed to bottom trawling.
Many parts of the North Pacific are closed to all trawling, including pelagic trawling. These areas have been closed to achieve defined conservation and management objectives, often with support of trawl fishery participants. In the Eastern Bering Sea, places where differential area-based regulations apply to pelagic and bottom trawling are relatively limited. Three habitat conservation areas around St Matthew Island, St Lawrence Island, and an area encompassing Nunivak Island-Etolin Strait-Kuskokwim Bay are closed to bottom trawling. The Council also established, and closed to bottom trawling, the Northern Bering Sea Research Area that includes the shelf waters to the north of St Matthews Island and the deep basin waters of the Bering Sea. While pelagic trawling is not prohibited in any of these areas, fishing for pollock has rarely, if ever, occurred.
That leaves the Red King Crab Savings Area, an area west of Bristol Bay established in 1994 to conserve red king crab. The reason bottom trawling was banned from the RKCSA is because it was responsible for significant red king crab bycatch mortality. Pelagic trawl gear, on the other hand, is responsible for almost no red king crab bycatch–fewer than 350 animals per year, on average, across the entire Eastern Bering Sea Alaska pollock fleet.
Excluding bottom trawl gear from the Red King Crab Savings Area while allowing pelagic trawl gear is not a “loophole”, as some have claimed. Rather, it’s a highly rational policy choice, based on the fact that red king crab bycatch for the permitted gear type is 99.2% lower than for the excluded gear.
Questions about “unobserved crab mortality” resulting from pelagic trawl gear contacting the seafloor have recently been raised. These are legitimate questions worthy of additional research. It is critical to note, however, that regulators—highly familiar with the bottom contact estimates of pelagic trawl gear—long ago acted to close vast areas of the Eastern Bering Sea to pelagic and bottom trawl gear alike specifically to protect Bristol Bay red king crab. These area-based closures encompass Area 512 (year-round, to conserve juvenile red king crab) and Area 516 (March 15 to June 15, to conserve mating and malting red king crab).
Further, we can be confident that unobserved crab mortality that may result from fishing in the Red King Crab Savings Area is having limited (if any) impacts on overall crab abundance. In response to a 2022 petition for emergency action filed by the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers to close the RKCSA to all fishing gear with bottom contact, APA used VMS track data and assumed 90 meters of seafloor contact for all trawls. We overlaid all fishing effort from 2016-2022 onto the area of known Bristol Bay Red King Crab distributions from the EBS bottom trawl survey in each year. What we found was that outside of the RKCSA, our spatial pelagic trawl fishing footprint overlapped with approximately 2.4% of the measured survey distribution of BBRKC on an annual basis. When looking at overlap with measured survey distribution of BBRKC within the RKCSA itself, the percentage dropped to 0.65%.
The fact that pelagic trawl gear contacts the seafloor is not a legitimate pretext for regulating it identically to bottom trawl gear – an entirely different gear type that operates differently and has different impacts. Calls for bottom trawl gear closures to correspond precisely with pelagic trawl gear closures are stunningly simplistic. Over its 50-year history, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s regulation of regional fisheries has consistently taken a far more sophisticated approach, seeking to advance precisely defined objectives based on the best available science.
4. Who is attacking pelagic trawl fishermen?
Alaskans are asking good-faith questions about the operation of pelagic trawl gear. The larger story, however, is the activist campaign that is targeting pelagic trawlers. Based on a review of Form 990 filings, we estimate that since 2021 more than $30 million has been spent by large philanthropic foundations on Bering Sea fisheries and related work (with 2025 and 2026 filings not yet publicly available). This does not include donations from affiliated high net worth individuals, which could total millions more.
The most prominent recent funder of Bering Sea fisheries work is the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, based in Palo Alto, CA and established by the founder of Intel Corporation. This single foundation has made $19.1 million in Bering Sea fisheries and related grants since 2021. Other active grantmakers include the Walton Family Foundation (Bentonville, AR) and the Pew Charitable Trusts (Washington, DC). Major grantees include Ocean Conservancy ($11M), the DC-based New Venture Fund and its SalmonState “project” ($5.7M), the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island ($2.9M), Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association ($2.6M), Kawerak ($2.6M), Bering Sea Elders Group ($689K), Alaska Marine Conservation Council (which recently rebranded to the Alaska Marine Community Coalition – $675K), Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers ($435K), Association of Village Council Presidents ($248K), Tanana Chiefs Conference ($241K), Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust (the sister organization of Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association – $240K), Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission ($225K), and Native American Rights Fund ($192K). While some of this grant funding unquestionably served important and productive purposes, taken together it is clear that the activity of large philanthropic foundations is serving to attack and undermine the Alaska Region’s world-class fishery management system.
Working through their grantees, the philanthropic foundations of out-of-state billionaires have spent millions of dollars to push a narrative about pelagic trawl gear that is false. Part of that narrative is the allegation that pelagic trawl gear was never intended to touch the seafloor, and that the terms “midwater” and “pelagic” were deployed by the pollock industry to intentionally mislead. That claim is a lie.
The terms “pelagic trawl” and “midwater trawl” were not coined in our region. Rather, they are terms that are routinely used globally to describe this specific gear type—originally developed in Denmark, and now used in a large number of global fisheries from New Zealand to Norway to South Africa. In the UCB whitepaper referenced above, the term “midwater trawl” was consistently used by the authors right alongside the substantial bottom contact estimates that they provided. The term “pelagic trawl” was defined in U.S. regulations that themselves explicitly assume bottom contact by pelagic trawl gear. Every North Pacific EFH review discusses and analyzes pelagic trawl gear’s bottom contact and its potential impacts. This occurs under the klieg lights of Council deliberations, which can now be viewed by anyone with an internet connection. Activist “exposés” of pelagic trawl gear’s bottom contact themselves draw from Council analyses that are in the public domain and used in the management process.
APA welcomes discussion and input on ways the operation of our gear can be very clearly explained to the public—up to and including potential changes in terminology. We operate in the most transparent fishery on Earth, and we want to ensure that the minutiae of our gear’s operation is conveyed fully and accurately to all stakeholders who take an interest.
Conclusion
Fisheries globally make an immense contribution not only to people and communities but also to global food security. Trawl fisheries are a critically important part of that story. In the Alaska Region, trawl fisheries are responsible for 80% of seafood production – supporting thousands of Alaska jobs, keeping Western Alaska communities alive, and ensuring the viability of transportation services that keep everyday costs for Alaskans lower than would otherwise be possible. Activist calls for regulations to prevent pelagic trawl gear from ever touching the seafloor are extremist. They are not part of an agenda to drive fishery improvement; they are part of a sophisticated and heavily-resourced campaign to shut our industry down. Alaskans should be clear-eyed about what’s going on. An Alaska without trawl fisheries will be a poorer Alaska. If anti-trawl activists succeed, they will bear responsibility for creating a less prosperous, less affordable state—all without improving the health of Alaska’s marine environment.
APA and its member companies will continue to engage in good faith with fishery regulators and stakeholders to advance the conservation and management objectives we all share. That includes continued research and innovation regarding the way we fish, including the way our pelagic trawl gear operates. APA staff and members welcome any questions you may have or suggestions for collaboration or innovation that you’d propose. We’ll also be working hard to share information and advance collaboration at this month’s North Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting, where a primary focus will be pelagic trawl gear research and regulation.