Opinion ID: 2520439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Co-Op Regulation Employs Means Outside the Board's Authorized Powers To Allocate Within a Single Fishery.

Text: Grunert broadly argues that the establishment of a cooperative fishery is inconsistent with the statutory definition of fishery contained in the Limited Entry Act. The Chignik fishery encompasses Administrative Area L, which includes the Chignik River system and approximately 110 other salmon-producing streams. The Department of Fish and Game manages five fishing districts within the Chignik commercial salmon management area so that escapement goals are achieved during the harvest of salmon that are surplus to spawning requirements. Salmon may be taken in the Chignik fishery only by purse seine or hand purse seine. [21] The Limited Entry Act defines fishery as the commercial taking of a specific fishery resource in a specific administrative area with a specific type of gear. [22] The board's authorizing statute, AS 16.05.251(e), permits the board to allocate fishery resources among personal use, sport, guided sport, and commercial fisheries. Grunert contends that because the cooperative fishery and the open fishery use the same gear, the board has impermissibly allocated resources within a single homogeneous commercial fishery by assigning different quota shares, different fishing periods, and different fishing areas to the two groups. The board asserts that arguments by Grunert based on the statutory definition of fishery are moot because a subsequent amendment to the co-op regulation now authorizes different gear types in the cooperative fishery. [23] The board also contends that nothing in AS 16.05.251(e) requires it to allocate resources only among fisheries rather than within a single fishery. We were informed for the first time at oral argument that the amended regulation now permits cooperative fishers to use leads on the purse seines. Assuming that a substantive difference between co-op fishery gear and open fishery gear presently exists, [24] we agree that Grunert's argument that use of the same gear by both groups conflicts with the statutory definition of fishery is now moot. We nonetheless consider this issue under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine because there may be a continuing dispute with regard to the new gear permitted by the amended regulation. [25] The authorizing statute states that the board may allocate fishery resources among personal use, sport, guided sport, and commercial fisheries. [26] The board contends that because the use of may is permissive rather than mandatory, the statute does not require the board to allocate resources only among the specified fisheries. Although the statutory language is permissive in giving the board discretion with respect to the initial decision whether to allocate at all, it does specify that the allocation is to be among, not within, the listed categories of fisheries. Among implies a construction of subsection .251(e) that supports Grunert's argument that the permitted allocations must be between the fisheries. It does not imply that within any given fishery the board may allocate fish. The allocation factors set out in subsection .251(e)'s subparts confirm that the intended allocation is among, i.e., between the separate fisheries. These factors refer repeatedly to each fishery and take into consideration the unique aspects of each fishery, such as its history, the number of people participating in it, its importance to the state's economy, and its importance in providing recreational opportunities. [27] The allocation factors provide no guidance as to how to evaluate sub-fisheries or subclassifications for purposes of allocating resources within a single fishery as that word is defined by AS 16.43.990(4). In addition, we note that the legislature authorized the CFEC, not the board, to split a fishery geographically and to create a new administrative area. [28] Therefore, if the cooperative fishery and the open fishery used the same type of gear in the same administrative area to take the same fishery resource, an allocation of resources to the cooperative would be an impermissible allocation within a single fishery.