A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to overturn new halibut bycatch limits on deep-sea trawlers that fish in federal waters off Alaska.
The lawsuit was filed by Groundfish Forum Inc., a Seattle-based trawl trade group, after the North Pacific Fishery Management Council passed a rule that reduces halibut bycatch limits for many trawlers when there are fewer halibut in Alaska waters.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, in charge of implementing the rule, moved to dismiss the lawsuit, and U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled in favor of the agency on Nov. 8. Undercurrent News, a trade publication, first reported on the ruling.
The lawsuit has been a major issue in fishing communities across the Gulf of Alaska. Some of those communities joined the federal government in defense, as did various fishing and conservation organizations.
U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Rep. Mary Peltola, D-Alaska, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the defense, saying that they believe the federal government appropriately implemented fisheries law.
“The (North Pacific) Council has followed the processes and done the work that Congress intended,” they wrote.
The state of Alaska also filed a brief in support of the defense, calling the rule “a well-considered decision rooted in the principles of sustainability, equity and fairness among competing users and long-term conservation.”
At the core of the lawsuit was an argument about whether bycatch — fish caught while pursuing a different target species — amount to an allocation of fishing privileges, akin to the way some fishers are subject to an annual catch quota while pursuing a specific species.
The plaintiffs argued that bycatch restrictions should be considered an allocation issue. That position was opposed by attorneys representing the federal government.
Under current rules, setting allocations is a longer and more intricate process than setting bycatch rules.
Ruling in the forum’s favor “would make it more difficult for NMFS to be able to issue rules that would prevent overfishing, and it would make it more difficult for NMFS to issue rules that would minimize bycatch, especially rules that would be able to do so in an expeditious way,” attorney Erika Furlong, representing NMFS, told Gleason in an October court hearing.
Gleason declined to rule on the core question but said that the rulemaking process was “fair and equitable” and “reasonably calculated to promote conservation,” whether or not it was an allocation of fishing privileges.
Gleason also ruled against the plaintiffs’ claims that the rule violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.