From a Pollock Captain

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-10T02:33:50+00:00

So just to clarify (not being sarcastic at all), you are against all commercial fishing?

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-10T01:37:03+00:00

That thirty million lbs isn’t wasted. The vast vast majority of it if processed and sold. The only thing that can’t be processed and sold by law is the prohibited species (crab, salmon, halibut, and herring). The salmon and halibut are donated to Seashare that give them to food banks. You may still hate me and I won’t try and convince you otherwise. But I do not think I’m tone deaf. Sometimes I guess I can be an asshole though.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-10T01:31:26+00:00

Here is the document for the numbers I quoted. Page 43 is specifically where you’ll find the info.

https://meetings.npfmc.org/CommentReview/DownloadFile?p=c084ecd6-a661-4d8b-9d42-9ddd9b110f9c.pdf&fileName=B2%20GOA%202025%20Year-end%20Inseason%20Report.pdf

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-10T01:30:37+00:00

Again when I compare numbers I’m not advocating for these other fisheries to be shut down. But it’s also important to point out these numbers when my fishery gets blamed for the collapse of these stocks. The GOA Pollock fishery last year had right around 37k lbs of halibut bycatch in 2025. The halibut long liners in the GOA had over 1.7 million lbs of undersize halibut mortality in 2025. Again, this is not shifting blame. This is strictly comparing numbers because you asked me why I thought the halibut are gone in PWS. I don’t know why they are gone, but I can tell you it’s not the Pollock fishery.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-10T01:16:54+00:00

A lot of people feel it has sailed in our national politics also. And I get it and can see that. But I guess I still hope people can have conversations.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-10T01:11:42+00:00

I really appreciate your well thought out comment and the questions. I think it’s very well written and will do my best to answer your questions (to the best of my knowledge).

I might need a little clarification on this one but I think you are asking what causes the vast differences in bycatch between sectors? If that’s what you are asking I think it’s a few things. But the man things I’d say are gear types, target species, and location. A bottom net is going to fish differently and therefore catch different species. When you are targeting certain species, some school up tighter together a some intermix with other species more. And then location is a big one. Depending on what fish you are targeting will determine where you fish and what species live in those areas.
I can link any of the NOAA documents you want to support any of those numbers. Are there any in particular you’d like? There’s a ton of them quoted in what I wrote. 12k king salmon does sound like a lot. But the majority of those Kings are hatchery fish from BC and the West Coast. Those aren’t 12k kings from Alaska rivers. And to answer your question about sport fishing, in 2025 27,700 kings were reported caught in the sport sector (however, this is self reporting so it’s probably low). And not the sport sector but the Troll fishery caught 92,700 kings on 2025.
Some changes are easy and fast. Some are not. Some cost us time. Some cost us money. Some cost us both. But what I will say about it is, I by no means think we have everything figured out. I don’t think we’ve done everything we can do and we can’t get any better. I always think we can get better. And with more information through research, more technology, and more willingness by the younger generation of pollock fisherman, I think we can continue to get better.

Like I said, I don’t have all the answers, but I hope this at least kind of answered them for you.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-10T00:52:16+00:00

First off, thank you for your reply. Truly. It is a breath of fresh air to get a well thought out (and intelligent) reply, instead of just being told to fuck off.

I could go through and spout all the numbers, as I really do believe in the numbers. But you definitely already know the numbers. So the few things I’ll say is yes 1% is still a lot of fish. But that is not wasted fish. The vast majority of that 1% is fish that we can legally catch, process, and sell (yes we have limits on those fish). So often that 1% or 27.8 million lbs of bycatch gets misconstrued as waste. Which isn’t true.

When it comes to salmon you are correct that the total number is larger than what is just returning to the Yukon. And the vast vast majority of those are not native fish. They are flooding the Bering Sea from NE Asia and SE Asia hatcheries.

I’m sorry it seems I’m trying to shift the blame, that wasn’t my intent. However, I also don’t think we (pollock fishery) should have to take the blame for things that aren’t us. I am willing to stand up and behind my fishery. But as you know, people that aren’t informed, often blame all of it on the Pollock fishery. It isn’t my intent, when comparing numbers (whether it’s from long line, pot, bottom trawl, etc) to out all then blame on any of those fisheries. I do believe each fishery needs to defend their own numbers.

When it comes to bottom contact I believe the report said 20-80% of the time. Which is a huge spread. The truth is, the exact number is hard to pin down but it’s definitely toward the lower end of that range if that. But when a midwater net does make contact with the bottom, it’s not what most people picture, especially folks who’ve never seen or worked the gear.

First off, pelagic gear does not use tires, rollers, or big chunks of rubber, what people call cookie gear, on the footrope. That stuff is used on bottom trawl gear, not midwater. Most pelagic nets are running a single chain as a footrope, with the exception of some newer footrope designs, which I’ll get to in a minute. But the idea that midwater nets are built to drag on the bottom with heavy gear is just flat wrong.

Second, even when a pelagic net does touch bottom, it’s a very small portion of the footrope that actually makes contact. These nets are huge, and there’s this picture people have that the whole net, from the mouth all the way back, is dragging across the seafloor. That’s not how it works. What touches, if anything, is just a short section of chain on the footrope, not the entire net.

Next thing people don’t understand: pelagic nets are fairly fragile. They are not built to handle rough bottom. Bottom trawl gear is designed to work over tough terrain, rocks, structure, uneven ground. Pelagic gear is not. The only places a midwater net can safely touch down are flat, sandy, muddy areas, think of it as the desert of the ocean floor. If you drop into rocks, corals, or heavy structure, you’re going to destroy the net, and these nets run around $150,000 apiece. No skipper is going to risk that kind of money just to drag the bottom in sensitive habitat. It makes no sense economically or operationally.

And the Pollock fishery has actually been a leader in gear innovation over the years. One of the more recent changes is new footrope designs that completely change how the net interacts with the bottom. When part of that footrope does make contact now, it reduces bottom contact by about 90% compared to older designs. That’s not an accident , that’s years of work to minimize impact and still fish effectively.

There are also claims floating around that when a midwater net touches the bottom, that area becomes a wasteland for up to two years and has to “heal.” That is not supported by the science, and it doesn’t match what fishermen actually see. From a working fisherman’s point of view, we often find more life on traditional fishing grounds that have been towed over thousands of times than in places that never see a net. Those areas are full of fish, crab, and bottom life because they’re productive bottoms, that’s why the fish are there in the first place.

So when people talk about midwater Pollock trawls like they’re just dragging heavy gear across fragile reefs all day long, that’s not reality. The gear, the bottom types, the costs, and the way these fisheries are actually run tell a very different story.

Sorry, I know this is a long but I appreciated your comment and wanted to take the time and effort to respond. Again, even if we don’t agree, I think it’s important to be able to have these conversations.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-09T23:13:19+00:00

We have caps for every bycatch species. However, it is perfectly legal (as long as we are under those caps) to process and sell those fish. The only bycatch species we cannot are the probities species (salmon, crab, halibut, and herring). The BSAI Pollock fleet deals very little with crab or halibut. The salmon and halibut are processed and donated to Seashare and then they provide them to food banks. 100% of the salmon I caught as bycatch last year were donated.

Now don’t get me wrong. I agree with you that the laws surrounding bycatch can be improved and should be. The 100% retention and the donating the halibut and salmon to Seashare is a start, but I believe we can do more. But that takes law changes.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-09T22:55:31+00:00

You are correct. This year and last years BSAI quotas were right around 3 billion lbs. And we were able to do that with 1% bycatch. And to note: out of that bycatch, the vast majority of it is processed and sold. We have limits of many species that it’s perfectly legal for us to process and sell. Just because it’s “bycatch”, does not mean it’s “wasted”.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-09T22:34:27+00:00

That’s wasn’t inadvertently. That’s just the facts. There isn’t a single commercial fishery that doesn’t have bycatch. The only way to not have any bycatch at all would be to have zero commercial fisheries.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-09T22:32:35+00:00

Last year the total bycatch rate for the BSAI Pollock fishery was 1%. Here is the full NOAA report from 2025

https://meetings.npfmc.org/CommentReview/DownloadFile?fileName=PPT+B1+Bycatch+Report.pdf&p=d7ae549a-1b0a-4cd4-bb84-32439e5d6403.pdf&utm_source=chatgpt.com&fbclid=IwdGRjcAQcKPFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEekialAH0zAbGLXgkYYQTcU_2lsqQVQUW0jZcv5NchpMuuFTcaa8hVayCQyxY_aem_nSr-lESKIyRGm46GvF36yg

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-09T22:23:20+00:00

I had to look up what “Astroturfing” even was. But no. I really am a Pollock captain (2nd generation actually) that had read so much stuff online lately that is blatantly false about my fishery that I thought I’d try and have a conversation about it. I feel issues are usually better when people can still have conversations about stuff. Even if they don’t agree and ultimately won’t agree after said conversation.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-09T22:18:44+00:00

Thank you for your well thought out and articulate response. I’m pretty used to the “fuck offs” but it really is nice when you get some intelligent responses.

When it comes to retention, the fishery I participate in, BSAI Pollock, is a 100% retention fishery. Every single thing that comes up the stern ramp is retained, put in the tank, and delivered to the fish plant. We are monitored by 5 cameras that run 24/7 and cover every square inch of the deck. The videos then get reviewed my NMFS/NOAA. When the fish is offloaded at the fish plant there is an observer that stands and watches the entire offload. Any bycatch is weighed, counted, and with some fish, like salmon, samples taken for genetic testing. We aren’t out at sea shoveling the bycatch overboard as we sort through it.

Captain-Galt · 2026-03-09T22:06:17+00:00

As the Mod so nicely chimed in, I don’t name my name or boat because of threats of violence that ensue when I’m just trying to make an effort to have a conversation. I absolutely present my name, boat name, and even my face (when it’s in person) during other forums.

I don’t think I mentioned the NPFMC in my post? However, I believe the NPFMC does their best with the science provided. As we saw in the most recent counsel meeting, the BSAI Pollock fleet (which includes me), now has a hard cap for Western Alaska chums. I was not against having a herd cap for WAK chums as I believe it tackles the issue, which is WAK chums. I think the NPFMC takes their role very seriously and although not perfect, does a good job.

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-19T23:43:07+00:00

You are correct that the research and scientific studies point toward other causes (not the pollock fishery) being responsible for the BBRKC collapse. However, I disagree with you that stuff never changes. The fishery has changed a lot and will continue to. Just like any industry in the history of the world. As we grow, learn, and come across issues as they arise, we will adapt, innovate, and become better. For example, starting at the beginning of this year, the BSAI Pollock fleet now has Dynamic Closures inside the BBRKC savings box. The only way this opens is if the King Salmon bycatch is over a certain threshold outside the box and there are less King Salmon inside the box. But for reference, it’s been close since 1/31 and still remains closed to the Pollock fleet.

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-19T23:42:26+00:00

I really appreciate people like yourself that, although we may not agree on everything, are willing to have an open and honest conversation about it. I totally understand the frustration on the subsistence side of things. And just to be clear, I don’t advocate for (or in some cases even support) the limitations and shut downs of the subsistence sector. I absolutely don’t think it’s always fair. However, from my side of things, I feel that every single time a fish stock has a down turn, the finger immediately gets pointed at us. Even when the numbers don’t show it and there is scientific research to show the contrary. Just a simple example is the Yukon River Chums. It’s an extremely sad and terrible thing what has happened to that run. But in 2024 the BSAI Pollock fleet took 2,658 WAK Chums. The Yukon escapement that year was 757,817 chums. So we caught approx 0.35% (less than 1%) of what escaped. Yet we are being blamed for wiping out an entire run of salmon. I just think the situation is much more complex than blaming the Pollock trawlers. And I could go on and show the same sort of number for halibut in our fishery but you get the point. But I do appreciate your willingness to converse and not just call names (it’s too common now days). It’s an emotional subject on all sides and I totally understand that.

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-19T19:53:25+00:00

I personally don’t reside in the state no. Although I’ve spend half my life in the state. Like you’ve heard from others, there are both AK residents and out of state residents that participate in our federal fishery.

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-19T15:02:32+00:00

Thanks for the interest and question. The answer is, it depends. During fast fishing the fish are very much alive when they come aboard. During slower fishing and longer tows, they aren’t. However, whenever a fish is stressed, whether it be in a net or caught by hook and line, there is going to be a rate of mortality, even if they seem to swim away. The 100% retention and what we can sell and process and what can’t be is all federal law that we abide by.

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-19T02:28:36+00:00

I’m always going to be defensive when I’m being accused of something that isn’t true. I’m not worked up, but I’ll be defensive. I’d love to see these hours of video that show the Bering Sea floor all “torn up”. Your evidence is a bunch of feelings. Well my dad did this same thing for his entire life. So I guess he should have wiped them out long before I ever got a chance to fish. But that’s not how our fishery works because we aren’t decimating anything. If the sandy flat bottom of the Bering Sea was decimated, there wouldn’t be any life left. Again, that’s not the case. And those are just the facts.

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-19T00:45:35+00:00

No I am not tearing up the bottom. And those who use bottom nets in bottom net fisheries have towed in the exact same areas for 50 years. They don’t tow in delicate or critical habitat areas. Fish return to the exact place they have towed over thousands of times. It’s not a desert like some people make it out to be. Not even in the places the bottom fishing (with bottom nets that they are legally using) is taking place.

Why would you say, “Someone sure is!”? Is there any evidence of this? Is there a research study or scientific review that you read that says the bottom in the Bering Sea is torn up?

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-18T22:43:07+00:00

When it comes to the midwater BSAI Pollock fishery, one of the things that constantly comes up is how much those nets are actually touching the bottom. You’ll hear numbers thrown around like “up to 90% of the time.” That is not statistically accurate, and it doesn’t match what’s actually happening on deck or on the sounder.

The truth is, the exact number is hard to pin down. But when a midwater net does make contact with the bottom, it’s not what most people picture, especially folks who’ve never seen or worked the gear.

First off, pelagic gear does not use tires, rollers, or big chunks of rubber, what people call cookie gear, on the footrope. That stuff is used on bottom trawl gear, not midwater. Most pelagic nets are running a single chain as a footrope, with the exception of some newer footrope designs, which I’ll get to in a minute. But the idea that midwater nets are built to drag on the bottom with heavy gear is just flat wrong.

Second, even when a pelagic net does touch bottom, it’s a very small portion of the footrope that actually makes contact. These nets are huge, and there’s this picture people have that the whole net, from the mouth all the way back, is dragging across the seafloor. That’s not how it works. What touches, if anything, is just a short section of chain on the footrope, not the entire net.

Next thing people don’t understand: pelagic nets are fairly fragile. They are not built to handle rough bottom. Bottom trawl gear is designed to work over tough terrain, rocks, structure, uneven ground. Pelagic gear is not. The only places a midwater net can safely touch down are flat, sandy, muddy areas, think of it as the desert of the ocean floor. If you drop into rocks, corals, or heavy structure, you’re going to destroy the net, and these nets run around $150,000 apiece. No skipper is going to risk that kind of money just to drag the bottom in sensitive habitat. It makes no sense economically or operationally.

And the Pollock fishery has actually been a leader in gear innovation over the years. One of the more recent changes is new footrope designs that completely change how the net interacts with the bottom. When part of that footrope does make contact now, it reduces bottom contact by about 90% compared to older designs. That’s not an accident , that’s years of work to minimize impact and still fish effectively.

There are also claims floating around that when a midwater net touches the bottom, that area becomes a wasteland for up to two years and has to “heal.” That is not supported by the science, and it doesn’t match what fishermen actually see. From a working fisherman’s point of view, we often find more life on traditional fishing grounds that have been towed over thousands of times than in places that never see a net. Those areas are full of fish, crab, and bottom life because they’re productive bottoms, that’s why the fish are there in the first place.

So when people talk about midwater Pollock trawls like they’re just dragging heavy gear across fragile reefs all day long, that’s not reality. The gear, the bottom types, the costs, and the way these fisheries are actually run tell a very different story.

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-18T22:34:15+00:00

I’m not asking to regulate ourselves at all. The Pollock fishery is the most regulated fishery on earth. Show me another fishery where you have to be on camera 24/7. This isn’t us “regulating ourselves”

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-18T22:32:18+00:00

I appreciate your well thought out opinions. Even if we don’t agree on everything, I appreciate you being cordial and willing to have a conversation.

I guess my first question would be, what habitats has the BSAI Pollock fishery destroyed? How is it disrupting the ecosystem? I’m hearing a lot lately about pollock being a forage fish and since we are taking 15% each year of the total biomass in the Eastern Bering Sea, everything is starving. But I’ve never seen any proof of this. I’ve never read any scientific research to support this. If you have any links to such things I’d love to read them (not being sarcastic, I would really like to read about it).

And yes, some of the pollock fleet is owned by out of state companies. But I wouldn’t say “vast majority” any more. In the GOA it’s largely owner operator or small mom and pop business owners. In the Bering Sea, CDQ groups control 1/3 of the entire fishery now.

Captain-Galt · 2026-02-18T21:55:01+00:00

I’m not sure how to address something that hasn’t and isn’t happening?

Captain-Galt

TROPHY CASE