June 10, 2026 — There’s an old saying that “when an argument depends on a lie, it’s the lie that’s doing the work, not the argument.” Lies work because they discard nuance, science and the complexity of issues to paint a clear narrative to further an outcome. Reading the recent op-ed (“Alaska’s ‘midwater’ trawl fleet needs to fish like one,” May 28) by a group of well-funded nonprofits, with 2024 revenue of around $87 million, it’s easy to see the power of such a narrative.
The inconvenient truth these NGOs wish to skirt is that the science is actually very clear: Habitat impacts from pelagic trawl gear are minimal, temporary in nature and well managed. Since 2005, managers have evaluated impacts on essential fish habitat, or EFH, in Alaska. These EFH evaluations are peer-reviewed by scientists every five years, and for two decades, the science has shown that the disturbance by all fishing gear is less than 5% in the Bering Sea and less than 1% in the Gulf of Alaska.
The science is also clear that where and how trawling occurs matters. While it is true that trawling can have a negative impact, the degree of that impact depends on the type of habitat, disturbance from storms and currents, and the design and use of the trawl gear.