Opinion ID: 2606320
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board erroneously required a familial relationship between current and past generations of users of upper Yentna River area salmon.

Text: The Paytons argue that the Board declined to find that current uses of upper Yentna River area salmon are customary and traditional because it improperly construed 5 AAC 99.010 to require successive generations of related individuals to have used the salmon. They contend that the Board engrafted onto the law successive generations and kinship requirements that are inconsistent with the language of 5 AAC 99.010(b) and the meaning of customary and traditional in AS 16.05.258. The State responds that subsistence laws protect only ongoing, historical uses and that its references in its 1988 written findings to the dearth of successive generations in the upper Yentna River area indicated that uses of salmon in the area were neither ongoing nor historical. We conclude that the Board did not err in considering the presence of successive generations, but that it did err when it required the current users of salmon to be related to past generations of users. In its 1988 written findings, which were incorporated into the 1992 decision, the Board referred to the lack of multigenerational families in the upper Yentna River area in its discussion of criteria one, five, six, seven, and eight. Indeed, the absence of multiple generations appears to be the principal reason that the Board declined to create a subsistence fishery. In the summary of its decision, the Board stated: [W]hile it is certainly true that the residents of this area fish ..., these characteristics are the result of a desire to move to a remote area and establish this type of life style rather than the continuation of a life style that has existed in a stable population of multigenerational families with a history of subsistence uses in the area. The board believes that the current subsistence law was designed to protect ongoing uses of fish and fishing practices  practices that existed in the the [sic] distant past and have been carried on through successive generations.... Despite repeated legal challenges to and multiple revisions of the subsistence laws, subsistence uses have long been defined in terms of customary and traditional uses. Compare Madison v. Alaska Dep't of Fish & Game, 696 P.2d 168, 170 n. 4 (Alaska 1985) with AS 16.05.940(32). Accordingly, we consistently have interpreted customary and traditional to refer to uses rather than users. State v. Morry, 836 P.2d 358, 368 (Alaska 1992); McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1, 9 n. 19 (Alaska 1989); Madison, 696 P.2d at 174. We disagree with the Paytons that our interpretation of customary and traditional prohibits the Board from considering how successive generations of Skwentna-area residents used salmon. The statutory definition of customary and traditional refers to long-term and consistent uses of fish. AS 16.05.940(7). As the State points out, customary means commonly practiced, used, or observed or familiar through long use or acquaintance. Webster's New International Dictionary 559 (3d ed. 1969). And one meaning of traditional is handed down from age to age without writing. Id. at 2422. Thus, the Board was charged with determining whether users of salmon in the upper Yentna River area currently practice methods of catching, preparing, and sharing salmon that were handed down from age to age. Such an inquiry demands that the Board investigate the activities of current and long-time residents of the area. Insofar as the Board made this inquiry in its written findings, it did not err. However, the Board went further than simply determining whether current residents had learned subsistence traditions from prior generations of persons who had used upper Yentna River salmon for subsistence: it required a familial relationship between current residents and those prior generations. This is evident from the Board's reference to multigenerational families in its summary of its 1988 findings, as well as from its findings relating to specific criteria. For example, in examining criterion six, the Board noted that there was also no information to indicate that current area residents developed use patterns based on knowledge of fishing skills, values, and lore which was handed down from generation to generation since the families in the area have not been in the area for successive generations. Similarly, with respect to criterion seven, the Board concluded that the people in the area ... do not appear to have developed a systematic pattern of sharing based on kinship ties of historical practices. Finally, the Board's findings for criteria one and eight indicate that current residents of the upper Yentna River area were not adequately relying on salmon because they had no long term consistent pattern of ties to the area and were not perpetuating a long-term use pattern because their households were newly established. The plain language of AS 16.05.258(a) and AS 16.05.940(7) and our prior decisions emphasize that customary and traditional refers to uses and use patterns of fish stocks. None of these authorities indicates that a use of fish may be customary and traditional only if current users are related by blood to past generations who used the fish in essentially the same way. Instead, the focus is whether the use has occurred consistently for an extended period of time. This interpretation is consistent with the legislative history of the 1992 amendments to the subsistence laws. Section 1 of chapter 1, Second Special Session Laws Amended (SSSLA) 1992 contains legislative findings regarding the purpose and intent of the 1992 subsistence revisions. In those findings, the legislature stated that customary and traditional uses of Alaska's fish and game originated with Alaska Natives, and have been adopted and supplemented by many non-Native Alaskans as well. Ch. 1, § 1(a)(3), SSSLA 1992. [5] Because the legislature recognized that customary and traditional uses can be adopted and supplemented, the legislature apparently did not limit the meaning of customary and traditional uses to only those uses that are handed down from parent to child or relative to relative. Therefore, we conclude that the Board's interpretation of 5 AAC 99.010(b) violated AS 16.05.258(a) because it erroneously required current users of salmon in the upper Yentna River area to be related to prior generations of users in the area rather than focusing on whether the fish stocks are customarily and traditionally taken or used for subsistence. AS 16.05.258(a). By construing the regulation the way it did, the Board inappropriately restricted the Paytons' ability to establish a subsistence fishery. [6] Moreover, this error cannot be characterized as harmless error. The Paytons asserted that they and other residents of the upper Yentna River area learned subsistence skills, values, and lore from long-time, albeit unrelated, residents of the Skwentna area. [7] Plus, the Division of Subsistence uncovered evidence that might support the Paytons' position. In 1992, the division informed the Board that it possessed new information from taped interviews with Skwentna area residents regarding Criterion 6, `intergenerational transmission of knowledge.' Although the division notified the Board that this information can be summarized orally if there are questions about it from Board members, the Board neither played the tapes nor asked questions about them. Based upon these portions of the record and the Board's interpretation of 5 AAC 99.010(b)(6), we conclude that the Board erred when it denied the Paytons' Proposal 362.