issue of an agency acting outside of the story to approve an unlawful should not harvest regulation devastates fisherman this court can and should review the agency's approval of the regulation surrounding the regulation instead the agency simply deferred to the pacific fisheries management council's data which was boyd of any meaningful analysis and then finally numerous reasons for exempting its regulation from a agency claims that the fisherman actually challenge i nineteen eighteen an amendment to the fishery management plan that's simply not the case up it's the two thousand harvest regulation that harmed the actually apply every year either the council can recommend to new that it not be applied or knew of its own accord and simply not apply this management of  foreigner right was lowered from thirty five percent to the queen thirty three and thirty four percent and that was right after this met in eighty nine amendment was an act they did without amending the plan and if you look at the next hundred eighteen and amendment regulation cell this point was brought up by public comment that there were concerns that this could only be done away with by a member and themselves pointed out that that's not true it can be done a way that way but there are also two other instances in which the the management objective may not apply in a given year and that's by the well it's permanent in the sense that it cannot be removed from the fishery management management plan except by a man but as far as actual annual application it is not necessarily have to apply every year well let's right there you can go back from from two thousand five the regulation challenge back to at least fifteen anyway and it did not operate because the fishermen hard but there were times when they did that amendment they challenge notice approval of the two thousand fabric of life now even for the sake of argument contending the fisherman challenge this management objective fishery management plan or that regulation to hear that action challenge is no problem geisha approval of this particular two thousand and five harvest regulations so therefore even for the sake of argument  we agree with your argument that the statue of limitations has not run and that you know is available to your clients to challenge their sturdy five thousand natural sponsors goal why is that in the who lose track of my initial they're treating the natural spanish the non natural sponsors as two different groups why is that not the end of the argument and you lose there is no support for them doing that definition of fishery in stock is fully the fish must be treated as a unit they cannot be treated as two separate yet but moreover even if those definitions were in big and the national standards two and three were ambiguous then at that point you look at the agency's interpretation of the language and here they have simply offered no support whatsoever for not treating natural just your honor it's not a reasonable interpretation so our task then is to determine whether or not the agented reading is reasonable or unreasonable that is your test that's as far as we go it's not whether we could come up with a better one  certainly their interpretation has to be consistent with the act you know reasonable and consistent with the act and we contend that it's neither they offer no justification and it does conflict with the act itself when they include all of those members by their own a car in that stock and in that fishery then they have to be treated the same from that point off they can't necessarily restrict the harvest very clear between a challenge to the permit which was timely and was allowed and was disposed of on the merits and the challenge to their regular regulation the overall regulatory scheme setting up the permit proper way to do that and that as in the context of all longstanding regulatory scheme if there is some a member of the regulator regulated community wants to challenge it they can fish in the agency first and then to the regulation result without saying that any any of them for example any challenge to the underlying regulation must be brought within a year or two years or three years at that time it's really doesn't doesn't look at time limitation on it right but they also don't say the court and turtle island talk about this magnussen act establishes a fairly comprehensive process so the fishery council is to develop the regulations lots of public comment lots of public input and then a very short window for judicial review because of the need to get regulations in place quickly and to have certainty about evaluating and therefore and therefore allowing someone to come in action so long as they're doing that challenge within thirty days so they're able to do that right and the only thing they want to do is add one more legal question to the challenge why does that make it such a more complicated case that it doesn't then have you fairly expeditio minimum thirty five percent or thirty five thousand natural waters whichever is greater mr brooks meant said well that the agency change that thirty five percent to thirty four  at page two fifty nine in the supplemental excerpt the fishery plan explains that the percentage the rate may be changed by action of the salmon technical team and that was how it was five ninety seven ninety eight ninety nine two thousand and two thousand and four and all of those years the natural spawn or its gateman provision either the rate for the floor was determinative that w goal should be challenged within thirty days of that being established as the goal same of your weight fifteen or more years to challenge that in the past is challenging in implementation you're not going to have those scientific evidence in the record once you're was in the record in support of the eighty nine decision at the time of the eighty nine action anything well i'm not at the you don't destroy the records from there provision annually and they did it this year my country make a record this year limitations does not buy the challenge of thirty five thousand natural spinors this game and we uphold it on the merits somebody comes along next year brings the same challenge to the thirty five but they don't want to but the least as i read cramer cramer doesn't force them to challenge the regulation within thirty days of the regulation now you might well you might say and i think quite properly what the crime or the realistic thing was it was all was going to overrule cream challenging the action has to be read as allowing the challenge to the underlying regulation upon which the act was these that's the whole point of the ruling kramer not well i don't think that that's what the because what in kramer they were if they were not allowed to challenge the implementation of the regulation in the implementation and all because the regulation of the implementation was done by an or not by regulation so that the fishery management plan or the limits are set in may and then in september the secretary issues an order i'm sure a few a few months later but after the the right and i think the answer is yes they can because they can say you you have closed the fishery on the basis of a thousand fish have been caught and that was the limit you set and in fact the record shows that only one hundred which i can so they can challenge the implementation of the basis for issuing the or but they can't go back and challenge the determination that one that's been made previously   you your honor i'm scott williams i represent the iraq dr i want to respond to some of the court's questions just now but first i'd like to explain to you why we're here the iraq has live since time  immemorial on the plane of the river klamath river is the heart of the reservation for the iraq people in every sense of the word including literally it is the reservation is one mile on either side of the klamath river in the now th pacific ocean forty five miles up river where it needs a reservation of the valley to the extent that ocean jewelers catch fish that would otherwise get to you just heard from the obligation of that agency to protect the ability of the iraq and valid people to depend on this as they have since the beginning part in the fishing rights of the indian people on the klamath river was so important that it justified a closure of the ocean culture in one thousand nine hundred three what the court went on to say is that if there is any doubt about the meaning of the statute if there is any concern about the agency's decision to use this court's word substantial deference is due the agency based on its obligation as a crusty to protect the fishery resources of the  that's why we're here in turning to the courts questions about the statute of limitations i returned to judge newton's on it earlier as we see it management plan was designed to be of and ational document subject to change on an annual basis modification on an annual basis to just for current circumstance there are two ways in which one could challenge fundamental principle of that plan one would be to do so within thirty days after that regulation was adopted the second would be to do it within thirty days after that regulation was applied to you but we have demonstrated what th and i think this goes to judge letters on it is that it would render the concept of the statute of limitations meaningless were it to be allowed for someone to wait year after year after year to choose their six months go by balance at thirty days six months go by and implementation of that with official closure is impulse at that point oregon trawlers are another go professional and challenge that implementation under years theory this is the first time it's been applied under your theory can they challenge the thirty five thousand a year in my opinion yes then why is this case different because we're outside the thirty days correct and i think you've said that that answer seems to me gives it away so why doesn't it give it away because the way we've read the amendment them they act within thirty days of that time period congress says that's ok but there's nothing in the last statutory language the same as they have to do it the first time it's applied and then i agree with you there isn't but as the federal government pointed out and it's one pages thirty one and thirty two this entire statute is designed to quickly come up with these annual modifications likely address any responses to them quickly resolve any disputes without  committed in these cases the courts including this work on congress said actually that ickes hearings thirty days statute of limitations everything is designed to do this quickly get it on challenge to the regulation sorry whether plaintiffs notice or whether it be the taking of their rights that complaint was filed well outside of the thirty day statute of limitations there is that if you don't challenge the thirty five thousand dollars thirty thirty five thousand fish number and tell well in the two thousand when that number was established nine hundred eighty nine upon what exactly their current implementation based on current circumstances that exist story as it did in two thousand in fact we can only assume that they have record support for that upholding the one nine hundred eighty nine decision but of course the proper place to look for the scientific support of that would have been in the administrative record leading up to the eighty nine decision isn't that right we're focused respectful your honor we're focused on their approval of this regular i understand what they did that's what i hear that but i'm asking you to respond to his point which i thought was a good one which is to say if you're going to play fair with the court in the sense of putting in front of the court all the considerations that the agency had w five thousand fish number of the number you think they couldn't shouldn't have done well why don't we have the record that actually led them to me to arrive at that number that's they last me who directed the compiled in one nine hundred eighty nine and you're if they can't provide support then this court should not hold their regulation because there's no support i would go back to the previous point that was made in one thing they now had their regulation apparently didn't cause any harm and one reason is because they love word the required ocean escapement right the reason why they did that was because there were almost one hundred thousand returning to spot it's no wonder there was