You might have heard that state Sen. Albert Kookesh, D-Angoon, recently won dismissal of a charge that he took an overlimit of subsistence salmon.
We now have the written ruling from the judge.
Deckboss intends to study the ruling carefully as it could be quite significant for Alaska fisheries management.
Logical ruling - but the state should go back and try Kookesh on going over the 25 fish bag limit - which one would think would still be in effect if the 15 fish limit was struck down.
ReplyDeleteEither way, he was over the 15 or 25 fish bag limit. Still guilty of not following whatever limit legally was in place.
Reading the ruling it seems to indicate that since ADF&G didn't follow the APA in setting bag limits for subsistence Kanalku Sockeye, there is no currently enforceable bag limit for subsistence Kanalku Sockeye. Did I read this right? How far does this ruling go as far as other subsistence bag limits?
ReplyDeleteI think the ruling says the 15 fish bag limit is not in force, because of a lack of public process, but it doesn't say the 25 fish bag limit, which did go through a public process, is not in effect.
ReplyDeleteSo, I would think a 25 fish bag limit is still in effect, which was violated by Kookesh.
He should be retried for exceeding the 25 fish bag limit.
Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but it seems to say the Board did not set any annual limit in regulation, therefore any bag limit set by ADF&G for Kanalku Bay would not be valid. My question was really asking how many other runs is this true for?
ReplyDelete"Notably, the Board of fisheries has not adopted a regulation setting the Angoon subsistence sockeye limit at 15 fish annually (or at any other amount). Rather,ADF&G simply internally determined what the Kanalku Bay subsistence bag limit should be and gave notice of its decisions, after the fact, by publishing the limit in subsistence permits. ADF&G's procedure for setting bag limits for Kanalku Bay subsistence sockeye permits does not comply with the APA."
"A regulation adopted by the Board in accordance with the APA was required to set the bag limits for Kanalku subsistence sockeye fishery."
It's pretty simple, to understand the Dept. of Law's Natural Reasorces Attorneys, who coulden't get a job in a real law office, so found one with the state.
ReplyDeleteJust go review the Classics, from Lance Nelson's great offices of incompetance, shown throughout the history of his employment!
Love that Chignik Co-OP? Oh! and the Supreme Court's Chignik 2, Opinion, for Mr. Neslon's reading comprehension problem in Chignik 1?
Then there's the great United States Commerce Clause, from 1789, that's confused this department, since 1869, quite the concept from the looser at Law, but just turn 10 million, into 70 million in refunds, by interest at 11%, and a case going back to the days of Jimmy Carter, who couldent make it as a peanut farmer, and found a job in government:
Just another Juneau Special!
Vote Kookish: at least it seems he can read, unlike the Department of Law!