Opinion ID: 2507994
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maximum number

Text: Simpson contends that the maximum number of permits for this fishery is too low. He claims the maximum number adopted by CFEC is not reasonably necessary to (1) carry out the purposes of the Limited Entry Act [17] (Act), (2) avoid hardship to persons engaged in the fishery, and (3) meet the constitutional goals we discussed in Johns [18] and State v. Ostrosky. [19] He argues that the maximum number is inconsistent with the Act's requirement of accomplishing the limitation without unjust discrimination. CFEC argues that Johns states that (1) it must set the maximum number for a non-distressed fishery at a level no lower than the highest number of units of gear in the fishery in any one of the four years prior to the limitation of the fishery, [20] and (2) conservation concerns based on the recommendations of the ADF & G are a sound basis for determining the maximum number. [21] The Act does not provide guidelines for setting the maximum number for non-distressed fisheries, [22] other than stating that the number should further the legislative purpose. [23] In Johns, a case also involving a non-distressed fishery and facts similar to those here, we stated that the legislature could not have reasonably intended that the maximum number for a non-distressed fishery be lower than the historic high. We therefore find that CFEC is obligated to set the maximum number, for a non-distressed fishery, at a level which is no lower than the highest number of units of gear fished in the four years prior to the limitation of the particular fishery. [24] Consequently, we stated that the number could not be lower than forty-one in the fishery at issue in Johns, because [a] maximum of forty-one purse seiners participated in the fishery in the four years prior to limitation. [25] Johns did not state clearly that for a non-distressed fishery the number should be the highest number of units of gear fished in that fishery in any one of the four previous years, as AS 16.43.240(a) requires for distressed fisheries. [26] We now expressly hold that for a non-distressed fishery CFEC must set the maximum number at a level that is no lower than the highest number of units of gear fished in any one year of the four years prior to the limitation of the particular fishery. Otherwise the words highest and maximum would make the sentences quoted above illogical, because totaling all the participants during the four years would produce a single number that could not have a maximum. [27] Similarly, we required the maximum number to be no lower than the highest number historically; [28] the highest number would normally mean the highest in any season, because both highest and maximum imply a comparison between seasons. This interpretation presents the best way grammatically to read this language. The highest number, therefore, does not mean the total number of permits fished during the four qualifying years, as Simpson seems to argue. Furthermore, our quoted language in Johns referred to the statute applicable to a distressed fishery, AS 16.43.240(a), which states that the maximum number of entry permits ... shall be the highest number of units of gear fished in that fishery during any one of the four years immediately preceding January 1, 1973. [29] This implied that the requirement that the maximum number for non-distressed fisheries was the maximum number for any one year. Per Johns, CFEC was therefore required to set the maximum number at a level no lower than the highest number of participants during any one year of the past four years. CFEC set the maximum at seventy-three, thus meeting the first part of the Johns requirement. Johns also requires CFEC to meet the Act's two legislative purposes of enabling fishermen to receive adequate remuneration and conserving the fishery. [30] In meeting these purposes, CFEC may consider evidence from other departments regarding (1) level of stocks in the fishery, (2) predictions for changes, and (3) recommendations regarding the maximum number. [31] CFEC here considered ADF & G's comments that this fishery was troubled and that even seventy-three might be an unsustainable number. CFEC accordingly struck a permissible balance between the Act's purposes of ensuring that fishermen receive adequate remuneration and conserving the fishery. In challenging the maximum number, an applicant must show that the number was an expression of whim rather than a product of reason. [32] Because CFEC complied with the requirements of Johns by considering past participation and other related factors as explained above, its decision to set the maximum at seventy-three was not an expression of whim. We therefore uphold it. Simpson advances two other arguments related to the maximum number. First, he argues that according to CFEC's records, the highest number of units of gear in one of the four years before the limitation was seventy-four, not seventy-three. CFEC replies that Simpson waived his argument that seventy-four people participated in the fishery in 1984, because he did not make it in his opening superior court brief. We agree with CFEC and the superior court that Simpson waived this argument because he raised it for the first time in his superior court reply brief. [33] Second, Simpson apparently argues that CFEC can exceed and has exceeded maximum permit levels in other fisheries without triggering the lottery provision of AS 16.43.270. [34] Thus, Simpson contends that CFEC was wrong to assert that if it exceeds the maximum number of permits, [it] `is required to conduct a lottery to reach the maximum number precisely.' This argument misstates CFEC's position and is also irrelevant. Contrary to Simpson's argument, CFEC does not claim that it must conduct a lottery simply because it increases the maximum number. Instead, CFEC correctly points out that it is required by law to conduct a permit lottery under certain circumstances. [35] Simpson also fails in his attempt to analogize this fishery to fisheries in which CFEC has issued more than the maximum number of permits. CFEC exceeded the maximum number in Johns because it was required to do so by law. [36] The Norton Sound herring seine fishery's original maximum number was increased to comply with Johns when CFEC learned the highest number of participants in one of the four years prior to limitation was higher than CFEC's initial research revealed. [37] Neither situation applies in this case. Simpson's argument that CFEC has issued more than the maximum number of permits in other fisheries without conducting a lottery is therefore irrelevant.