Opinion ID: 2520439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Co-Op Regulation Pursues Permissible Objectives.

Text: Grunert contends that the Board of Fisheries does not have authority to determine qualifications for entry into commercial salmon fisheries. The board exceeds its statutory mandate in promulgating a regulation if it pursues impermissible objectives or employs means outside its powers. [15] Alaska Statute 16.05.251 authorizes the Board of Fisheries to adopt regulations for, among other things, regulating commercial, sport, guided sport, subsistence, and personal use fishing as needed for the conservation, development, and utilization of fisheries. [16] Conservation refers to the controlled utilization of a resource to prevent its exploitation, destruction or neglect. [17] Development relates to the management of a resource to make it available for use. [18] We have held that the duty to conserve and develop fishery resources implies a concomitant power to allocate fishery resources among competing users. [19] The board refers to the language of the co-op regulation itself to argue that it is consistent with authorized purposes. The regulation defines a cooperative fishery as: a commercial purse seine salmon fishery in which, by agreement of the participants, the number of fishing vessels may be reduced with the intent of decreasing overhead expenses associated with commercial fishing and controlling the rate of harvest to achieve a higher quality product.[ [20] ] The board contends that the regulation increases the economic efficiency of commercial fishing by allowing a lower-cost option for harvesting fish, and ... increases the quality of the fish product by providing for a more controlled rate of harvest. The co-op regulation does not affirmatively promote specific conservation goals permitted under the board's authorizing statute; rather, 5 AAC 15.359(e) states that the regulation's allocation is secondary to escapement and harvest objectives, and the commissioner may, by emergency order, reduce or expand fishing opportunity to ensure escapement and harvest objectives. The allocation itself is thus not inherently based on conservation objectives but instead is subject to those objectives. The regulation's language demonstrates that its primary focus is on the economic circumstances of the Chignik fishermen, such as those economic hardships imposed by declining salmon prices, declining permit values, and rising operating costs. These concerns do not pertain to the conservation of the salmon stock in the fishery. As the board argues, the regulation may facilitate the management of the fisheries by the Department of Fish and Game by reducing the number of vessels in the fleet. But this benefit is only minor and incidentally related to conservation goals. The board urges, however, that increased economic efficiency in fishing serves a development purpose. It contends that if participation in a fishery becomes cost-prohibitive, the fishery will no longer be viable and fishery resources will not be developed at all. To the extent increased economic efficiency is necessary to the utilization and survival of the Chignik fishery, we agree that the co-op regulation pursues a permissible objective. The apparent focus on economic development and utilization does not establish that the regulation exceeded the board's statutory authority, nor does the lack of prominence of a goal of regulating conservation.