Opinion ID: 1211330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: THE SUBSISTENCE DEFENSE CONTRADICTS THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE OF AS 16.05.920(a)

Text: Since this case involves a question of statutory interpretation, we independently evaluate the lower court's interpretations of AS 16.05.255(b). State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission v. Templeton, 598 P.2d 77, 81 (Alaska 1979) (footnote omitted). AS 16.05.920(a) states: Unless permitted by this chapter or by regulation adopted under this chapter, a person may not take, possess, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase fish, game or marine aquatic plants, or any part of fish, game or aquatic plants, or a nest or egg of fish or game. This section has been part of Alaska's fish and game code since the early days of statehood. Art. I, ch. 94, § 28, SLA 1959. It is phrased negatively:  unless permitted, no one has a right to take or possess Alaskan game. No regulation authorized David Eluska to take a deer in Kodiak in May, and his taking of the deer was, therefore, unlawful. The court of appeals implicitly ruled that section 255(b) authorized Eluska's taking. [4] We disagree. Section 255(b)'s history does indicate the legislature's intent that there be separate regulations governing subsistence hunting. See Eluska, 698 P.2d at 179. We find no evidence, however, of an intent to grant any personal right to take or possess game in the absence of such regulations. Section 255(b) merely established the priority of subsistence uses within the regulatory scheme. [5] If the regulations adopted by the Board fail to establish the desired priority, it is difficult to believe that the legislature intended unregulated hunting to be the result. [6] In permitting unregulated subsistence hunting, as a remedy for the board's failure to adopt subsistence regulations, the court of appeals relied upon United States Smelting, Refining & Mining v. Local Boundary Commission, 489 P.2d 140 (Alaska 1971). In that case we struck down a city boundary change made by the Local Boundary Commission because the Commission had not first complied with a legislative command to develop standards and procedures for changing boundary lines. We did not say that those regulated by the Commission, cities and boroughs, could change their own boundaries because of the Commission's failure to comply with the statute. United States Smelting stands only for the proposition that agency action taken without first complying with a statutory requirement may be invalid; it does not stand for the proposition that an agency's failure to act in accordance with a statutory requirement means that those who are regulated by the agency may act as though they were not regulated. United States Smelting, therefore, does not support the result reached by the court of appeals. Thus, we decline to recognize a subsistence defense in this case. No statute or regulation authorized Eluska's hunt. His possession of game was therefore illegal under AS 16.05.920(a). The state could properly prosecute Eluska for violation of 5 AAC 81.140(a) (repealed 1985), [7] since he possessed game in violation of the fish and game code. [8] We REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.