Opinion ID: 1405962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was the cfec's action in setting a maximum number for this fishery unconstitutional?

Text: Johns challenges the constitutionality of the CFEC's action in setting the maximum number for this fishery at thirty-five. [8] Johns argues that the CFEC's action violates the equal rights clauses of article I, section 1 [9] and article VIII, section 17, [10] because the maximum number of permits authorized does not bear a strong enough relationship to the purposes of the Limited Entry Act. In addition, Johns argues that the maximum number set by the CFEC is not consistent with the constitutionally permitted purposes of limited entry as provided in article VIII, section 15 of the Alaska Constitution. [11] These constitutional arguments are in substance answered by part II.B. of this opinion. The CFEC's action was justified by resource conservation reasons. Imposing a limited entry system for these reasons is expressly authorized by article VIII, section 15 of the Alaska Constitution. State v. Ostrosky, 667 P.2d 1184 (Alaska 1983). It is a non-sequitur to contend that the exclusivity which is inherent in any limited entry system violates the state constitution, since the limited entry system is authorized under the state constitution. Id. at 1190.