Opinion ID: 1155563
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board Has Authority to Ban Fish Spotting.

Text: According to Fish Spotters, 5 AAC 06.378 was outside the Board of Fishery's authority and [was] not the product of reasoned decision making. Because this appeal is technically moot, we refrain from a discussion of whether 5 AAC 06.378 was the product of reasoned decision making. Rather, we consider only whether the Board has the authority to ban fish spotting in Bristol Bay. We conclude that the Board has such authority. In conformity with article VIII, section 2 of the Alaska Constitution, the legislature created the Board of Fisheries [f]or purposes of the conservation and development of the fishery resources of the state. AS 16.05.221(a). We have previously defined `conserving' as `impl[ying]' controlled utilization of a resource to prevent its exploitation, destruction or neglect. `Developing' connotes management of a resource to make it available for use.' Gilbert, 803 P.2d at 393 n. 1 (alteration in original) (quoting Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Coop. v. State, 628 P.2d 897, 903 (Alaska 1981). In support of these goals, the legislature has authorized the Board to adopt regulations it considers advisable for establishing the means and methods employed in the pursuit, capture and transport of fish and for regulating commercial, sport, subsistence, and personal use fishing as needed for the conservation, development, and utilization of fisheries. AS 16.05.251(a)(4), (12). The legislature also directed the Board to establish criteria for the allocation of fishery resources among personal use, sport and commercial fishing. AS 16.05.251(e). Based on the Alaska Constitution, these statutes and our past decisions, we conclude that the Board has the authority to ban fish spotting if such a ban is properly based on conservation, development or allocation goals. The Board's power to regulate fishing means and methods for conservation purposes originates from the Alaska Constitution and is undisputed. Alaska Const. art. VIII, § 2. In prior cases we have recognized the Board's power to allocate between users as it controls utilization of fisheries resources. We have held that the Board's duty to conserve and develop fishery resources implies a concomitant power to allocate fishery resources among competing users. Meier v. State, Bd. of Fisheries, 739 P.2d 172, 174 (Alaska 1987) (citing Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Coop., 628 P.2d at 903) (approving allocation between commercial and recreational users). We have also held that the Board's authority encompasses the power to allocate a fishery resource between two competing subgroups of commercial users. [2] Meier, 739 P.2d at 174 (approving allocation between setnet and driftnet fishers). Because this case is moot we need not determine specifically whether 4 AAC 06.378 was properly adopted. However, we again stress the importance of an adequate decisional document to facilitate judicial review. For a court to determine that an agency acted within its authority in adopting a regulation, it is vital that the agency clearly voice the grounds upon which the regulation was based in its discussions of the regulation or in a document articulating its decision. Peninsula Mktg. Ass'n v. State Bd. of Fisheries, 817 P.2d 917, 922-23 (Alaska 1991); Messerli v. State Dep't of Natural Resources, 768 P.2d 1112, 1118 (Alaska 1989) overruled on other grounds, Olson v. State, 799 P.2d 289, 292-93 (Alaska 1990).