Opinion ID: 2623963
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maximum number of permits

Text: As we explained in Simpson, AS 16.43.240(b) provides that CFEC shall limit participation in a fishery by establishing a maximum number of entry permits. [22] For a non-distressed fishery, [23] CFEC must set the maximum number of permits at a level that is no lower than the highest number of units of gear fished in the four years prior to the limitation of the particular fishery. [24] CFEC limited participation in this fishery in 1985 and determined that 1984 was the year with the highest number of units of gear fished, with seventy-three. [25] CFEC adopted seventy-three as the maximum number for this fishery. [26] Pasternak claims that CFEC erred when it established the maximum number of permits in the fishery. He argues that CFEC should increase the maximum number of permits by 10 permits or 5% as permitted. CFEC contends that it may exceed the maximum number of permits only where required to do so by law, which it maintains is not the case here. CFEC further argues that our decision in Simpson forecloses Pasternak's argument that the maximum number of permits should be increased based on conditions in the fishery. The superior court found that Simpson foreclosed Pasternak's arguments regarding the maximum number of permits for this fishery. In Simpson, Steven Simpson appealed CFEC's denial of his application for a permit in the Northern Southeast Inside sablefish longline fisherythe same fishery at issue in this case. [27] Simpson challenged both the maximum and the optimum number of permits CFEC established for the fishery. [28] We applied a two-pronged test to CFEC's establishment of seventy-three as the maximum number of permits. First, we clarified that the maximum should be set at a level that is no lower than the highest number of units of gear fished in any one year of the four years prior to the limitation of the particular fishery. [29] We held that seventy-three permits met this requirement. [30] Next we applied the requirement that CFEC must meet the [Limited Entry] Act's two legislative purposes of `enabling fishermen to receive adequate remuneration and conserving the fishery.' [31] Noting that CFEC considered comments from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game that even seventy-three permits might be unsustainable for the fishery, we held that seventy-three permits also met the second prong of the test. [32] We rejected Simpson's argument that CFEC should increase the maximum number based on conditions in the fishery. [33] As a result, Simpson forecloses Pasternak's argument that CFEC should increase the maximum number. We need not consider Pasternak's second argument regarding the maximum number, that seventy-fournot seventy-threeis the highest number of units of gear in the four years prior to the limitation of the fishery. [34] Although this argument is not foreclosed by Simpson, [35] Pasternak has not shown that he was prejudiced by CFEC's determination that seventy-three is the maximum number of permits. According to CFEC, it is mathematically impossible for an applicant with 51 or fewer points to qualify for a permit in the fishery. Nothing in the record suggests that Pasternak would have qualified for a permit if the maximum were seventy-four, and he has made no such argument to this court. Because we need not consider an argument without a showing of prejudice, we do not address his argument that the maximum number should be seventy-four. [36]