Opinion ID: 2507994
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bringing the maximum number into line with the optimum number

Text: Simpson asserts that it was incorrect for CFEC to contend below that setting the optimum number above seventy-three would require CFEC to sell the additional permits for fair market value. He states that CFEC was asked to establish, not revise, an optimum number of permits for the fishery; he consequently argues that AS 16.43.290 does not address the sale of permits. Simpson's briefs do not make it clear how an increase in the optimum number would benefit Simpson, i.e., make him eligible to obtain a permit without paying for it. It is the maximum number that is important in this case. Perhaps Simpson is contending that setting the optimum number at a figure larger than seventy-three somehow would have increased the maximum number enough beyond seventy-three that his point total would have made him eligible for a permit. Or perhaps he is contending that if the optimum number had been much larger than seventy-three, CFEC would not have auctioned off the additional permits, and instead would have issued him a permit without requiring him to pay fair market value for it. But such contentions would be inconsistent with the controlling statute. As we stated in Johns, once CFEC has determined the optimum number for a fishery, [i]f the optimum is greater than the number of permits issued plus the number of applications pending, the excess should be sold under the provisions of AS 16.43.330. [43] CFEC may sell additional permits if the number of outstanding entry permits for a fishery is less than the optimum number. [44] Alaska Statute 16.43.330 calls for issuing the additional permits in a manner that assure[s] the receipt of fair market value. [45] Therefore, if the optimum number exceeded the maximum number, the controlling statute would be AS 16.43.330, not AS 16.43.290, the statute Simpson cites. This means that increasing the optimum number would not help Simpson. He would have to pay fair market value for an auctioned permit; he might as well purchase a permit on the open market. Simpson's assertion that CFEC has not auctioned permits in the past does not demonstrate any error here. CFEC's practice in other fisheries does not establish that it erred when it found that the maximum number of permits for this fishery should be seventy-three and that the optimum number was no greater than seventy-three.