On Dec. 29, the Alaska Supreme Court decided that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s management of the herring roe fisheries in Sitka Sound did not violate the constitutional rule to manage for a “sustained yield.”
“This is a great decision supporting the Department of Fish and Game’s work to provide the Alaska Board of Fisheries with guidance that is helpful and well-grounded in science, so that our fisheries will continue to produce for generations to come,” said Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor.
In late 2018, the Sitka Tribe of Alaska sued the Department and the Alaska Board of Fisheries after poor subsistence harvests of herring eggs, blaming the problem on the commercial fishery that catches herring before the spawn.
The Tribe alleged in part that the State’s management violated the constitutional mandate requiring use and maintenance of the resource “on the sustained yield principle.” The Tribe sought a preliminary injunction, which the Superior Court denied. After further litigation, the Court rejected most of the Tribe’s claims on the merits. The Tribe appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decisions.
The Court decided that the sustained yield mandate does not require courts to referee the information that the Department’s biologists provide to the Board of Fisheries, which makes decisions that guide the Department’s in-season, day-to-day management of the fisheries.
Instead, the Court explained, “Deciding what information is relevant and how it is shared is within the Department’s discretion.” Courts exercise oversight of fisheries management through application of the “hard look” standard, which requires that an agency has engaged in reasoned decision-making, not that it has considered any particular type of information.
“ADF&G takes our constitutional mandate to manage “consistent with sustained yield principle” as our cornerstone. It’s refreshing to see the courts recognize us for those efforts,” said Commissioner Doug Vincent-Lang, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Moreover, the Court rejected the Tribe’s contention that the Department improperly withheld information about the Sitka Sound fisheries from the Board in 2018-19. The Court determined that the Department’s decision not to provide a certain report in full to the Board was a proper exercise of its discretion. The report was highly technical, not directly relevant to the Board’s consideration of regulatory changes, and the type of report ordinarily distilled into a more easily digested summary for the Board.
The Supreme Court also affirmed the Superior Court’s order denying attorney’s fees to any party and declined to review the denied entry of a preliminary injunction as moot.
