At the April meeting, a policy tightening restrictions on written public comment was quickly proposed and passed. This meeting drew an outpouring of testimony on two items: halibut and king salmon bycatch by the trawl sector. The overwhelming majority of testimony favored reducing that bycatch and managing it based on abundance. People expressed their viewpoints passionately. A few included profanity, but those were dwarfed by the number who respectfully expressed concerns about the future of our ocean ecosystems, fisheries, communities, cultures and livelihoods.

Late on the final day of the meeting, the Council adopted a policy that significantly tightened the rules on written testimony and gave Council staff broad authority to censor and filter comments. Part of their stated rationale for the new policy was that “members of the public linked the comment portal… and broadcast it on social media platforms (Facebook, Reddit), which generated numerous comments from people not familiar with the Council process” and “numerous comments were made prior to any documents being uploaded, and many comments were unrelated to the eAgenda item under which they were posted.” It may be frustrating to the Council when stakeholders are not as familiar with their process and culture as paid advocates whose lobbying contracts are compensation for intimate knowledge of the complex rules and relationships within the system. However, this is not a valid rationale for censoring the public, nor is it inappropriate to share information on how to participate with a broad audience of Alaskans for whom the process may be new or discouraging.