Opinion ID: 2622902
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pot Fishery

Text: To be eligible to apply for a permit in the pot fishery, as in the longline fishery, an applicant must prove that he or she harvested the fishery resource commercially while participating in the fishery as the holder of a gear license . . . and an interim-use permit . . . during at least one of the calendar years 1975-1984. [45] Because. May bases his claim of eligibility on his activities in 1980, his eligibility in the pot fishery turns on his ability to demonstrate that he participated ill the fishery in 1980 and that he commercially harvested the resource in that year. May challenges CFEC's determination that he did not prove a commercial harvest using pot gear, as well as its determination that he did not participate in the fishery in 1980: On the question of commercial harvest, he argues that CFEC erred in concluding that he did not prove a commercial harvest with pot gear. He asserts that the hearing officer's conclusion that he did not harvest black cod is based on speculation and maintains that the hearing officer's finding that May did not sell black cod should be reversed. Although May testified at the hearing that he must have sold black cod caught with pot gear, the affidavits he submitted recall the sale of longline-caught black cod only. For example, Larry Vandehey submitted an affidavit that he was a crewman with May in 1980. He indicated that they began fishing for black cod using pots: Those efforts were not very successful so we decided to change to longline gear. Once the gear had been changed, we began fishing in the Southern Clarence Straits area and just outside of [Noyes] Island for black cod using our longline gear. I remember that we sold our longline caught black cod catch to Annette Island Cold Storage that year. Similarly, Freeman McGilton of AIPC indicated in his affidavit: I specifically remember buying longline caught black cod from Bert May . . . in 1980. None of the affidavits recalls the sale of black cod caught with pot gear. [46] Because May failed to produce fish tickets to demonstrate sale of black cod caught with pots, he must overcome the negative inference that results from his failure to produce fish tickets. Unlike the longline fishery, where May had his own affidavit, those of his crew, and that of a manager at AIPC to support his claim of a commercial harvest of black cod with longline gear, the only evidence he provided to prove a harvest with pot gear is his statement years later that he must have sold black cod caught with pots. In this case, that statement is insufficient to overcome the negative inference that arises from his inability to produce fish tickets. [47] We therefore uphold CFEC's determination that May was not eligible to apply for a permit in the pot fishery. [48]
May also challenges the maximum number in the pot fishery. But we need not consider an argument without a showing of prejudice. [49] Because we hold that May is not eligible for a permit in the pot fishery, he cannot show that he is prejudiced by any error in setting the maximum number; he is not entitled to a permit regardless of the maximum number.