HCR 22: Affirming the legislative intent of state law that the Alaska Board of Fisheries currently has the tools and authority to allocate fishery resources within a fishery based on vessel size class, gear limits, trip limits, and registration areas.
00 HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 22 01 Affirming the legislative intent of state law that the Alaska Board of Fisheries currently 02 has the tools and authority to allocate fishery resources within a fishery based on vessel 03 size class, gear limits, trip limits, and registration areas. 04 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA: 05 WHEREAS art. VIII, Constitution of the State of Alaska, gives the legislature the 06 authority to manage the state's fish and game resources for the maximum benefit of the people 07 of Alaska, and the legislature has delegated this authority to the Board of Fisheries and Board 08 of Game and established statutory framework giving the boards necessary tools to manage 09 resources and satisfy the constitutional mandate of maximum benefit to Alaskans; and 10 WHEREAS the management tools provided to the Board of Fisheries originate under 11 AS 16.05.251, which allows regulations for fishing in different districts in a single 12 administrative area and regulation by vessel size and gear type; and 13 WHEREAS the Board of Fisheries has approved a broad spectrum of management 14 regimes based on an implicit authority to allocate among different fisheries; and 15 WHEREAS there has been discussion in the legislature and in the fishing community
01 questioning whether the Alaska Supreme Court decisions set out in Grunert v. State, 109 P.3d 02 934, 930-932 (Alaska 2005), and State v. Grunert, 139 P.3d 1226, 1235-1239 (Alaska 2006), 03 could be used to overturn a wide range of regulations adopted by the Board of Fisheries; and 04 WHEREAS the Grunert decisions focused on a regulation that allocated within a 05 fishery a cooperative allocation that allowed nonparticipants to benefit from the efforts of 06 participants, which is a distinct issue and does not correlate to other existing state fisheries 07 management schemes; and 08 WHEREAS, before the Grunert decisions, the Alaska Supreme Court, in State v. 09 Hebert, 803 P.2d 863 (Alaska 1990), upheld the use of superexclusive use areas, and this case 10 was not mentioned as being overturned in the Grunert decisions; and 11 WHEREAS the regulations limiting catch based on harvest objectives, such as Prince 12 William Sound and Chatham Strait black cod, do not create a cooperative fishery but rather 13 limit the total amount a fisherman can harvest, and hence do not fall under the purview of the 14 Grunert decisions; and 15 WHEREAS existing statutory language allows the Board of Fisheries to adopt 16 regulations to set quotas, has been interpreted to allow quotas based on vessel size class, and 17 provides the board a solid statutory base for making allocation decisions; and 18 WHEREAS existing state fishery management plans for state waters allocate portions 19 of a fishery based on vessel size class, gear limits, trip limits, and registration areas; 20 BE IT RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature affirms the legislative intent of 21 state law that the Board of Fisheries currently has the tools and authority to allocate fishery 22 resources within a fishery based on vessel size class, gear limits, trip limits, and registration 23 areas; and be it 24 FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Fisheries is encouraged to proceed with 25 the management of public resources based on the legislative intent of the Alaska Statutes 26 without speculative consideration of the Grunert decisions.