A big win for trollers

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today issued an opinion reversing a lower court ruling that could have idled Southeast Alaska Chinook salmon trollers.

The continuing fight over Metlakatla's fishing rights

Alaska is petitioning the San Francisco appeals court to reconsider its recent ruling that would appear to exempt Metlakatla Indian Community fishermen from the state's limited entry program.

A blow to state fisheries management

A federal appeals court has ruled that Metlakatla tribal members may fish commercially in waters off their Southeast Alaska reservation — specifically, in districts 1 and 2 — and they don't need a state permit to do so.

This startling court opinion would seem to knock a serious hole in the state's fishery management authority, in particular the limited entry program.

Court battle over Cook Inlet salmon continues

Two interesting documents were filed yesterday in federal court in Alaska.

UCIDA motion to vacate Amendment 12

Declaration of Erik Huebsch

For background, here's a news item from the November 2016 issue of Pacific Fishing magazine:

Cook Inlet salmon ruling

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 21 ruled in favor of United Cook Inlet Drift Association (UCIDA) and Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund in a case concerning Cook Inlet salmon management.

The two groups sued the federal government in 2013 and appealed after a loss in the district court.

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has jurisdiction over the federal waters of Cook Inlet, the 9th Circuit opinion said.

In 2010, the council began a comprehensive review of the salmon fishery management plan (FMP), and the next year voted unanimously to remove Cook Inlet from the salmon FMP. The government argued in court that the removal amounted to delegation of Cook Inlet to the state of Alaska, which had long managed the inlet’s salmon fisheries.

UCIDA and its co-plaintiff opposed implementation of the council’s action. They have problems with the state’s management of Cook Inlet salmon, saying commercial sockeye catches have suffered over the years.

The 9th Circuit remanded the case to the district court.

Steller sea lion plaintiffs suffer another defeat

Back in July, you'll recall, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled against the state and industry groups who sued over fishing restrictions imposed in the Aleutians to protect endangered Steller sea lions.

This week, the court denied a petition for rehearing.

State, industry lose Steller sea lion appeal

Here's the opinion from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

9th Circuit upholds state in Cook Inlet case

We told you over the weekend about a lawsuit the commercial fishing industry filed against the state concerning salmon management in Upper Cook Inlet.

Now, today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has issued an opinion favoring the state in a case four commercial gillnetters brought in 2007.

Here's the top of the appeals court opinion:

Plaintiffs Dyer L. Vandevere, John McCombs, Gary Hollier, and John Jent fish commercially for salmon in the waters of Alaska's Upper Cook Inlet. State-issued entry permits and shore fishery leases allow them to fish there. After Alaska promulgated regulations that shorten the fishing year and limit the number of salmon that commercial fishers may harvest, Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendant Denby Lloyd, who is the Commissioner of the Fisheries for the State of Alaska (the "Commissioner of the Fisheries"), asking the district court to declare those regulations unconstitutional as a taking of property without just compensation and as a violation of Plaintiffs' due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of the Fisheries. On de novo review, Ward v. Ryan, 623 F.3d 807, 810 (9th Cir. 2010), we affirm.

Court rules Exxon owes interest in spill case

Here's an opinion today from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals holding that Exxon Mobil Corp. owes interest on the $507.5 million judgment the Supreme Court ordered last year in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case.

This will push total punitive damages to roughly $1 billion.

But fishermen and other plaintiffs had best not hold their breath just yet for a share of the interest money.

Frank Mullen, a Homer commercial fisherman and close follower of the case, explains why:

"There are a number of moves available to Exxon to drag the issue out further:

• Exxon could once again ask for an 'en banc' hearing

• Exxon could appeal to the Supreme Court."

Mullen continues:

"I would not expect any payments associated with interest any time soon ... perhaps 2010?"