SEAFOODNEWS.COM By Peggy Parker – January 4, 2016
Commercial salmon fishermen, along with the entire seafood industry in Alaska, heaved a huge sigh of relief on New Year’s eve as Alaska’s highest court upheld the principle that fisheries allocations in Alaska cannot be subject to ballot initiative.
The Court’s decision upheld a core section of the Alaska Constitution, and reversed a lower court ruling that would have allowed a state wide referendum to put a ban on Set Nets in the Cook Inlet salmon fishery. The referendum was sought by recreational harvesters and guides.
The initiative, sponsored by the Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance, would have prohibited the use of commercial set nets in non-subsistence areas, specifically Upper Cook Inlet near the Kenai and Kasilof rivers. It would have gutted the Board of Fish and ADF&G’s authority to determine how best to manage salmon fisheries in that area.
AFCA’s initiative was aimed at Cook Inlet set netters, who target sockeye salmon but occasionally take chinook salmon, a highly regulated species for both commercial and recreational fishermen in the area. The sponsors represented thousands of sports fishermen who fish upriver of the set netters and who target sockeyes and chinook.
Alaska’s Attorney General rejected the initiative as allocating resources from one gear group to another, and banned the initiative from the ballot later this year. The Alaska Superior Court overturned his finding, bringing the issue to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Recognizing the importance of resource management based on scientific not political principles, the court’s decision explained that the initiative triggered a core concern of the Constitutional delegates back in 1956.
The court concluded that the constitutional delegates wanted a clear “prohibition on appropriations by initiative: the initiative would result in a give-away program of salmon stock from set netters to other types of fishers, and it would significantly narrow the legislature’s and Board of Fisheries’ range of freedom to make allocation decisions.
“[The inititative] would therefore effect a prohibited appropriation via initiative. We accordingly REVERSE the superior court’s order requiring the Lieutenant Governor to certify the initiative,” the justices wrote.
The Alaska Department of Fish & Game uses a complex in-season management plan to insure enough escapement has gone up the river at specific run timings, for both commercial (gillnet and setnet) and recreational fisheries.
The initiative’s call to ban an entire gear type in a specific area by a popular vote would replace a complex and detailed management plan for a blunt tool that have would likely have unintended impacts.
The decision is being hailed as a turning point in the decades long battle between recreational and commercial fishing interests. It essentially blocks a strategy to use Alaska’s burgeoning sports fishing sector to influence salmon management in a popular vote.
Jerry McCune, president of United Fishermen of Alaska said if the decision had approved the ballot measure, it would have set precedent for other groups looking to limit any resource extraction they disagree with, like oil and gas.
“Which would have been catastrophic for Alaska,” he said.
“I think we’ll take a deep breath right now and savor the moment that we don’t have to take an initiative on and spend a million dollars to defend the industry on a vote,” McCune said in a phone interview with Alaska Dispatch News.
Arni Thompson, with the Alaska Salmon Alliance, hopes this decision change the battlefield between sports and commercial to a more productive landscape of collaboration to protect salmon resources.
“The Court has ruled against the proposed set net ban initiative as being in violation of core objectives in the State Constitutional, including the prohibition against appropriative initiatives because they would transfer salmon to a majority user group at the expense of a minority user group,” Thompson says.
“The set net ban initiative and parallel measures in the regulatory process are costing the State of Alaska increasing legal and research fees in a time of fiscal crisis when all state expenditures are being closely scrutinized.
“The time is long overdue to initiate a serious dialogue in recognition of the need to pull together to share and protect the resources,” he says.
Peggy Parker, Science and Sustainability Editor
SeafoodNews.com 1-781-861-1441
Editorial Email: Editor@seafood.com
Reporter’s Email: peggyparker@seafood.com
Copyright © 2016 Seafoodnews.com