Opinion ID: 1405962
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the CFEC abuse its discretion in failing to consider income dependence and consistency in participation?

Text: Johns next argues that even if the CFEC had the authority not to measure each factor, it was an abuse of discretion for the CFEC not to measure consistency of participation and economic dependence in this case. In order to show that an administrative agency has abused its discretion, it is not enough that the prescribed system ... shall appear to be unwise or burdensome or inferior to another. Error or unwisdom is not equivalent to abuse. AT & T Co. v. United States, 299 U.S. 232, 236-37, 57 S.Ct. 170, 172, 81 L.Ed. 142, 145 (1936) ( quoted in Kelly v. Zamarello, 486 P.2d 906 (Alaska 1981)). To show an abuse of discretion, the appellant must show that the agency decision was an expression of whim rather than an exercise of judgment. Id. In this case the CFEC issued special findings indicating why it was not measuring consistent participation and income dependence for this fishery. The CFEC noted that the opening in this fishery may only last a few hours or minutes. It was therefore not uncommon for an operator to be unable to participate. The CFEC concluded that consistency of participation does not truly reflect the historical participation of herring purse seine fishermen in these fisheries. Measurement of consistency of participation in a calendar year within the cited constraints is not only impractical but impossible in terms of accuracy. As to income dependence, the CFEC found [f]ew, if any, fishermen actually depend on the herring sac roe fisheries as a reliable source of income. It is not any fisherman's primary fishery but rather a fishery of short duration prior to the salmon purse seine seasons in which he utilizes his salmon vessel and crew with only a special net required. Under these circumstances, the CFEC found that the income dependence standard was not a valid measure of the economic dependence of a fisherman on the fishery. Our review of the record leads to the conclusion that the CFEC's decision not to include consistency of participation and income dependence as factors in determining hardship, was not an expression of whim, but rather an exercise of judgment. As such, we find there was no abuse of discretion.