The Ban on Russian Seafood Imports to Continue in US

A legislative resolution urging a continued and better-enforced ban on Russian seafood in the United States is headed to Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

The ban, imposed after the beginning of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, is set to expire this year. A resolution is one of the measures intended to help the state’s seafood industry.

Part of a series of actions by Alaska lawmakers to try to shore up the state’s ailing seafood industry, House Joint Resolution 29 won final passage last week and was transferred to the governor on Monday.

The resolution calls for continuation of the ban on Russian seafood imports imposed in 2022, after the special military operation in Ukraine. The ban was expanded in 2023 to cover imports of Russian seafood to the US through a third-party country, usually China, where fish are processed.

Among the supporters is Jeremy Woodrow, executive director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.

“We need more time to really capture the US marketplace. Our industry has not recovered yet,” Woodrow said. Even though last year’s fishing season was better, it was still one of the worst years in the last 20 years, he said.

In addition to seeking an extension of the import ban, the resolution calls for stronger monitoring and enforcement to “ensure fair trade, protect the state’s seafood industry, and promote sustainable and ethical seafood production.”

Legislative resolutions do not have the power of law, but they can influence actions by Congress, the federal executive branch or other institutions.

The Russian seafood import ban resolution was not among the measures introduced by the Joint Legislative Task Force Evaluating Alaska’s Seafood Industry, formed in 2024. However, it addresses an aspect of international trade, one of the issues raised by the task force. The task force’s report recommended an update to a Russia-focused resolution passed by the legislature in 2022, Senate Joint Resolution 16.

The eight-member task force, comprising Senate and House members from fishery-dependent districts, issued its recommendation report in January 2025, at the start of last year’s session. Recommendations for action resulted in the introduction of a series of bills intended to help the industry, which has struggled with low fish prices, glutted international markets, high costs and other challenges.

One of the task force’s bills, aimed at encouraging seafood product development and diversification, is headed for a vote in the Senate this week.

That measure, Senate Bill 130, concerns the state’s fisheries product development tax credit system. Currently, seafood companies are allowed to deduct the cost of new equipment used to develop value-added products from salmon, herring, pollock, sablefish and Pacific cod. The bill would expand that to all fish species, including shellfish.

The bill, in the amended form before the Senate, also seeks to expand the range of technology for which investment would qualify for credits, and it would extend the sunset date for the credit to 2037. Currently, the tax credit is due to expire next year.

The revenue impact of the bill, if it wins final passage, is difficult to determine because there are several unknown variables, said the fiscal note prepared by the Alaska Department of Revenue. Estimated annual revenues losses to the state would range from $1 million to nearly $4 million, according to the fiscal note.

The legislature passed two seafood task force bills last year, each of which had wide support. However, Dunleavy vetoed one of the bills.

The bill that escaped the governor’s veto, House Bill 116, allows for the formation and operation of member-owned commercial fishing insurance cooperatives. Such cooperatives exist in other states and were used by some Alaska fishers. The bill passed unanimously.

The vetoed bill, Senate Bill 156, would have transferred $3.69 million from a defunct state loan fund to the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank. The state-owned bank needed the boost to keep serving the seafood industry, bill supporters argued. But Dunleavy argued that the cost of the action was too great for the state budget to bear.

Source: Alaska Beacon