Opinion ID: 1394031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the regulation allows a fair and reasonable opportunity to commercially fish for salmon

Text: Alaska Statute 16.05.251(d) provides that regulations adopted by the Board must, consistent with sustained yield ... provide a fair and reasonable opportunity for the taking of fishery resources by personal use, sport, and commercial fishermen. SSSNA argues that because AS 16.05.251(d) and (e) were enacted at the same time, each must be interpreted to create a harmonious whole. Therefore, it concludes that as applied to an allocation of fishery resources, to be fair, a regulation may impose a hardship on one group only when, under applicable criteria, the hardship `is outweighed by the total benefits received by another group or groups'. C & W Fish Co., Inc. v. Fox, 931 F.2d 1556, 1563 (D.C. Cir.1991) (citing language from 50 C.F.R. § 602.14(c)(3)(i)(B)). It contends that the record does not demonstrate that the hardship that it will incur by closure is outweighed by the benefits that will be received by any other group(s). Therefore, it concludes that the regulation does not provide a fair opportunity for it to harvest sockeye salmon. [23] SSSNA is correct that the Board did not attempt to do a specific cost/benefit analysis. It would be very difficult to place a specific monetary value on the benefits resulting from this regulation. For example, it is difficult to put a price tag on conservation benefits. Additionally, management of a fishery resource is not an exact science. There is much speculation involved. The exact composition of each stock involved in this regulation was unknown as was the potential fluctuation in stock composition from year to year. The Board appeared to balance the concerns of many groups in adopting this regulation. It was aware of the concerns of the set netters and processors in the Shumagin Islands as well as the fishers in Nushagak and Chignik. It attempted to allow as much fishing time to harvest targeted pinks and chums as it could, consistent with its allocation and conservation concerns. Therefore, we conclude that the regulation does not unnecessarily deprive any group of the fair and reasonable opportunity to fish.