Opinion ID: 2507994
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Optimum number

Text: Simpson contends that the 1994 adoption of the shared quota system to replace the derby system in this fishery resulted in significant advantages to the participants, the market, the public, and the environment. Each fisher under a shared quota system receives an equal share of each year's quota, whereas each fisher under a derby system tries to catch as many fish as possible during the season. Simpson contends that this quota system established an economically stable and equally lucrative fishery. He argues that the optimum number of permits should be greater than seventy-three, and contends that it should be 109. CFEC argues that Simpson must show not merely that CFEC achieved an imperfect balance of the statutory factors it must consider in establishing the optimum number, but rather that it failed to reasonably consider the factors at all. [38] It claims he has failed to do this. CFEC maintains that it thoroughly considered data related to both the conservation and economic considerations, including information the ADF & G provided. It contends that it struck a reasonable balance of the relevant factors in accordance with the Act's purposes and it did not abuse its discretion. Alaska Statute 16.43.290 requires CFEC to establish the optimum number of permits and lists the factors CFEC needs to consider in doing so. It provides: Following the issuance of entry permits under AS 16.43.270, [which is based on the maximum number,] the commission shall establish the optimum number of entry permits for each fishery based upon a reasonable balance of the following general standards: (1) the number of entry permits sufficient to maintain an economically healthy fishery that will result in a reasonable average rate of economic return to the fishermen participating in that fishery, considering time fished and necessary investments in vessels and gear; (2) the number of entry permits necessary to harvest the allowable commercial take of the fishery resource during all years in an orderly, efficient manner, and consistent with sound fishery management techniques; (3) the number of entry permits sufficient to avoid serious economic hardship to those currently engaged in the fishery, considering other economic opportunities reasonably available to them.[ [39] ] The optimum number, which is codified by regulation for this fishery, [40] may be greater or less than the number of permits that have been actually issued for the fishery. [41] As noted above, CFEC had evidence that the stock strength of the fishery was declining, and ADF & G thought that even seventy-three permits would be too many. The fishery, as well as the fishers' livelihood, depends on a sustainable catch. Thus, CFEC wrote that it believed that conservation of this resource is the primary consideration. Its decision to set the optimum number at seventy-three, therefore, is reasonable and not arbitrary, and is also consistent with the statute and reasonably necessary to its purposes; it consequently satisfies the standard of review we apply when reviewing an administrative regulation. [42] We therefore uphold it.