After more than a year of deliberation after a year of consideration, after a year of consideration, Alaska Supreme Court has sided with the state in a case concerning managing the Sac Roe Herring fishery in Sitka. The five-justice panel affirmed an order of 2021 by the Superior Court judge who denied an argument by members of the Sitka Tribe of Alaska that Department of Fish & Game managers had violated the constitution of the state.
The Sitka Tribe of Alaska first filed suit against the state in the year 2018 and alleged that commercial fishery management had put herring stocks as well as traditional harvesting practices in danger. After the Tribe won on the statutoryand legal allegations and a number of other claims, the Tribe asserted it was it was the Alaska Department of Fish and Game was bound by the Constitution to provide “best information available” which they failed to provide in the absence of an independent report on scientific research for the Alaska Board of Fisheries. The report suggested a variety of enhancements to the method used by the department to determine the number of fish in Sitka Sound. The state argued it was extremely technical and could not be directly relevant to the Board of Fish in its decision-making.
It was 2021 when Juneau Superior Court Judge Daniel Schally found that the state didn’t violate any law of the constitution by not releasing the report because there was no obligation within the “sustained yield clause” of the constitution of the state for the state’s obligation to provide with the “best known details.” It was determined that the Tribe challenged the rulingbefore the Supreme Court in December of 2022.
In a 23-page decision published on December. 29th the Court upheld the decision of Judge Schally to dismiss Sitka Tribe Alaska’s claims to the Constitution. The law already obliges agencies to release every “relevant information” concerning resource management concerns and, by not providing this report’s findings for review by the Board of Fish, the Court stated that it was the Department of Fish and Game had acted in its discretion. The Court also denied the Sitka Tribe of Alaska’s demand for a temporary injunction on the grounds of “public interest” and affirmed the decision of Judge Schally to deny the Tribe’s attorney’s fee for the earlier claims. The Court found it was not the case that either state or the Tribe had “bested” each other as they both prevailed in the matter. Deciding who was the winner in a particular case, the Supreme Court wrote, is subject to the discretion of the Court.
In an announcement,Tribal Council Chair Lawrence “Woody” Widmark responded to the decision, saying “While we’re disappointed this Supreme Court did not agree with there is a requirement in the Alaska Constitution requires the state to make use of the most current information for managing fisheries The Tribe’s lawsuit led to significant improvements in the management of the Sacrifice roe herring, a commercial industry located in Sitka Sound.”
“And even though we do not be paid legal fees, we do not regret making use of our resources to protect the sovereignty of the Tribe over the natural resources of our ancestral territories,” he continued. “Our people have taken care of and safeguarded our yaaw (herring) since the beginning of time and we’ll continue to do this.”
In the press release issued by the Alaska Department of Law, Attorney General Treg Taylor praised the decision of the Court, “supporting the Department of Fish and Game’s efforts to give with the Alaska Board of Fisheries with direction that is useful and based on science to ensure that our fisheries continue to provide for the generations to come.”
And ADF&G Commissioner Doug Vincent Lang wrote that the agency is guided by its constitutional responsibility to govern “in accordance with the principle of sustained yield as its foundational principle. “It’s pleasant to see that courts acknowledge us for our actions,” Vincent-Lang said.
Alaska’s new Supreme Court Justice Jude Pate who hails from Sitka and was an ex-public defender and tribal attorney, wasn’t in the courtroom at the time of the hearing last year.
