Opinion ID: 2569468
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Brandal's claim under the special circumstances provision

Text: Brandal claims that, because he obtained his gear license in 1974, his income dependence is not realistically reflected by his income dependence percentage for the years 1971 and 1972, entitling him to special circumstances points under 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2). This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, special, as used in 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2), assumes that the usual has not occurred, or conversely, that something unusual has occurred. [21] Circumstances other than having been a co-owner who fished on a partner's gear license can qualify as special, [22] but we [have] not h[e]ld that being a crew [member], as opposed to a gear license holder or a gear license holder's partner, is a `special circumstance.' [23] Although Brandal worked on his father's boat in the years preceding 1974, he did so as a crew member, not a co-owner. For that reason, his situation is analogous to Kalmakoff's, which was not covered by the special circumstances exception. Second, although Isakson permits those who first obtained gear licenses in 1973 and 1974 to apply for permits, it does not forbid the CFEC from favoring 1971 and 1972 gear license holders over Isakson applicants. [I]t was reasonably necessary, in furtherance of the purpose of evaluating and avoiding hardship, to favor people who had held gear licenses in 1971 or 1972 over people who first held gear licenses after 1972 and people who last held gear licenses before 1971. [24] Those who held licenses in the years immediately preceding the passage of the Limited Entry Act were more likely to suffer hardship from being forbidden to fish than former licensees who had changed careers and future licensees who had not yet committed themselves to making a living from the fishery. [25] The special circumstances provision thus focuses not on hardship in general, but rather on the hardship that an established, career fisher would have experienced in 1973 from suddenly being forbidden to fish. Admittedly, hardship evaluated as of 1973 is not the same thing as present hardship, but this is a choice ... which the legislature has explicitly made. [26] Brandal began fishing as a crew member long before the passage of the Limited Entry Act, but he did not acquire a gear license until 1974 and he was not the co-owner of a vessel in 1971 or 1972. Although the CFEC's unconscionable delay has given Brandal over two decades to invest in fishing equipment, and Brandal may experience significant economic hardship from being forced to change careers, he does not fall within the narrow class of fishers that the special circumstances provision was designed to protect. As we emphasized in Isakson, the Limited Entry Act contemplates that hardship w[ill] be determined as of January 1, 1973. [27] Without condoning the Commission's conduct, we hold that the CFEC did not err in refusing to award Brandal additional points under the special circumstances provision.