ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
Tommy Nowak
In Bittner v. Board of Game, 563 P.3d 1123 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that an Alaska resident who alleged an interest-injury caused by amendments to the State’s predator control program, which expanded the killing of bears and wolves, had standing to sue. (Id. at 1131). The Board of Game in Alaska expanded its predator control program in 2021, which was designed to boost the population of Caribou. (Id. at 1125). As part of this effort, the Board allowed the targeted killing of wolves, brown bears, and black bears. (Id. at 1125). Michelle Bittner, an Alaska resident, challenged the amendment, arguing regulations affecting wildlife in Alaska must take into consideration both consumptive and “non-consumptive” uses of wildlife, such as wildlife viewing, conservation, photography, and “just knowing that wildlife is flourishing in Alaska.” (Id. at 1126). The superior court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss Bittner’s complaint because it determined that Bittner had not alleged an injury sufficient to establish standing and was not an interested person “within the meaning of the APA.” (Id. at 1127). The Supreme Court of Alaska disagreed, holding that at the motion to dismiss stage, where all facts in the complaint must be taken as true, Bittner’s complaint established a sufficient interest injury. (Id.). Interests that establish standing include aesthetic or environmental interests. (Id. at 1128). Here, the Court held that Bittner’s travels through Western Alaska, including visiting Katmai both before and after the new predator control program was implemented, were enough to establish a personal and specific aesthetic injury for standing. (Id.). Katmai is roughly 100 miles from where the predator control efforts were taking place, but Bittner alleged that staff members there told her that the population of Brown bears was noticeably smaller after the policy was enacted. (Id. at 1128–29). The Court was not persuaded by the fact that Bittner herself had never observed a brown bear, or that Bitner never alleged that she ever visited or intended to visit the specific areas where the predator control was occurring because bears can roam for distances of up to 100 miles. (Id.). The Court also clarified that when a person has interest-injury standing to challenge the validity of a regulation, the party is also an “interested person” within the meaning of the APA. (Id. at 1130). Reversing the superior court’s decision, the Supreme Court of Alaska thus held that Bittner had standing to sue. (Id. at 1131).
