ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)
Anighya H.D. Crocker
In Cook Inlet Fisherman’s Fund v. Department of Fish and Game, 514 P.3d 1259 (Alaska 2022), the supreme court held that (1) the Alaska Statehood Act did not impose specific ongoing federal requirements on fishery management in state waters, (Id. at 1255–56), and (2) Alaska was not required to follow national fishery standards in the federal waters of Cook Inlet during the years of 2019 and 2020, (Id. at 1259–60). In 2019, the salmon run on Kenai River was unusually low, and the State predicted that additional fishing restrictions would be necessary. (Id. at 1253). Therefore, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game notified fishermen that the State would be implementing gear restrictions for various types of fishing. (Id.). The Cook Inlet Fisherman’s Fund (CIFF) filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief against the State. (Id.). CIFF argued that federal law required fishery management to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that the State had impermissibly deviated from national standards. (Id. at 1253–54). The court held that Alaska was not required under the Alaska Statehood Act to manage state waters according to national interests. (Id. at 1257). Rather, Alaska has possessed independent management of state waters since 1960. (Id. at 1256). The court noted that the Magnuson-Stevens Act does allow for the federal government to delegate management authority for the federal portions of the Cook Inlet, but it had not done so during 2019 and 2020. (Id. at 1259). Affirming the lower court, the supreme court held that (1) the Alaska Statehood Act did not impose specific ongoing federal requirements on fishery management in state waters, (Id. at 1255–56), and (2) Alaska was not required to follow national fishery standards in the federal waters of Cook Inlet during the years of 2019 and 2020, (Id. at 1259–60).
