Maritime Injury Law BlogUS Court Dismisses Alaska Fishing Group’s Halibut Bycatch Lawsuit
A recent legal battle between the Groundfish Forum, representing the interests of Alaska’s flatfish fishing sector, and the U.S. government over new halibut bycatch regulations ended in favor of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In a ruling delivered by U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason, the court upheld Amendment 123, a decision that reinforces the government’s approach to managing halibut bycatch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) fisheries. This case is an example of the tension between regulatory bodies, conservationists, and the fishing industry regarding sustainable practices in one of the world’s most economically valuable fishing zones.
The Alaska flatfish fishing industry, especially its bottom trawling sector, plays a substantial role in the BSAI region. However, the industry has long faced scrutiny over halibut bycatch. Limits have traditionally been a source of contention due to their direct effect on fishery profits and the need to protect halibut stocks, a critical species for commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishers.
“CBSFA has worked for nearly a decade to have the management of halibut bycatch changed to be more responsive to changes in the health of the halibut resource – to be abundance-based – and now we finally have closure,” said CBSFA President Ray Melovidov in response to the ruling.
“The halibut fishing families in our community can be assured that the halibut resource will continue to be managed more fairly and appropriately. We wanted improved equity and stability in the halibut fishery, and now we have it. Our future is brighter,” said Melovidov.
The Groundfish Forum, representing 17 trawlers across five companies—including Fishermen’s Finest, North Star Fishing Company, and U.S. Seafoods—claims that Amendment 123 unfairly singles out their fleet while other fishing sectors that also catch halibut as bycatch, such as pelagic trawlers, longline freezer vessels, and pot vessels, face no new restrictions. The trade group argued that the amendment breaches federal requirements, specifically National Standard 4, which calls for “fair and equitable” resource allocation, and National Standard 9, which urges regulators to minimize bycatch as much as possible.
In her decision, Judge Sharon Gleason rejected the arguments presented by the Groundfish Forum, ultimately siding with the NMFS and upholding Amendment 123. Judge Gleason found that the NMFS had acted within its authority to implement abundance-based bycatch limits, emphasizing the importance of preserving halibut stocks in a sustainable way. She also noted that the NMFS had sufficiently analyzed the potential economic impacts on the industry while prioritizing the ecological health of the BSAI ecosystem.
By endorsing the NMFS’s approach, the court has reinforced the principle that regulatory bodies can consider environmental factors in developing fisheries policies, even when these policies impose economic constraints on specific sectors of the fishing industry.
“Upon review of the record, the Court finds that NMFS satisfactorily explained how Amendment 123 is rationally connected with the legitimate Groundfish FMP goal to manage bycatch and why any hardship imposed on the Amendment 80 sector was outweighed by the total benefits received by the directed halibut fishery and the halibut stock, particularly as bycatch mortality by the Amendment 80 sector in Area 4CDE (where Amendment 80 catches up to 90% of its halibut bycatch limit) has exceeded directed halibut fishery removal for many years. The Court therefore finds that the agency’s reasoning in the FEIS and the final rule is sufficient to support its finding that Amendment 123 is fair and equitable,” Gleason wrote in her decision.
As environmental conditions continue to impact fishery resources, abundance-based management represents a step toward more responsive and adaptive fisheries policies. While this ruling marks the end of the Groundfish Forum’s legal challenge, it also serves as a reminder that balancing ecological needs and economic interests is a complex and ongoing process.