Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court considered challenges to the Alaska Board of Game’s 2006 wolf and bear predator-control plans. The court held that both Alaska’s constitutional sustained-yield clause and the sustained-yield principle in AS 16.05.255 apply to predator populations, while allowing preferences between predator and prey populations. The court upheld the plans because the appellants failed to show that they violated sustained-yield principles, and affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees to West.
Holdings
- Article VIII, section 4 of the Alaska Constitution applies to all wildlife, including predator populations such as wolves and bears.
- The sustained-yield clause permits the State to establish preferences among beneficial uses and therefore allows management choices favoring prey populations over predator populations, including predator control in appropriate circumstances.
- The sustained-yield principle in AS 16.05.255 applies to predator populations, although the statute permits management choices that prefer prey populations over predator populations.
- The challengers failed to prove that the Board's 2006 predator control plans violated either the constitutional or statutory sustained-yield requirements.
- West was not entitled to attorney's fees because he did not prevail on the main issue of invalidating the predator control regulations.
Questions Presented
- Whether article VIII, section 4 of the Alaska Constitution applies to predator populations, including wolves and bears.
- Whether the constitutional sustained-yield clause permits the State to prefer prey populations over predator populations through predator control.
- Whether AS 16.05.255's statutory sustained-yield requirement applies to the Board's management of predator populations.
- Whether the challengers proved that the Board's 2006 predator control plans violated constitutional or statutory sustained-yield principles.
- Whether West was entitled to attorney's fees as a prevailing party.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (14)
- Parson v. State, Dep't of Revenue, Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp., 189 P.3d 1032 (Alaska 2008)(followed)
- McCormick v. Reliance Ins. Co., 46 P.3d 1009 (Alaska 2002)(followed)
- Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1999)(followed)
- Koyukuk River Basin Moose Co-Mgmt. Team v. Bd. of Game, 76 P.3d 383 (Alaska 2003)(followed)
- Lakosh v. Alaska Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 49 P.3d 1111 (Alaska 2002)(followed)
- Rhodes v. Erion, 189 P.3d 1051 (Alaska 2008)(followed)
- Hammond v. Hoffbeck, 627 P.2d 1052 (Alaska 1981)(followed)
- Div. of Elections v. Johnstone, 669 P.2d 537 (Alaska 1983)(followed)
- Hickel v. Halford, 872 P.2d 171 (Alaska 1994)(followed)
- Glover v. State, Dep't of Transp., 175 P.3d 1240 (Alaska 2008)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 14.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…