Ronald T. West v. State of Alaska ( 2024 )

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
corrections@akcourts.gov.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
RONALD T. WEST, )
) Supreme Court No. S-18458
Appellant, )
) Superior Court No. 3AN-21-06865 CI
v. )
) OPINION
STATE OF ALASKA, )
) No. 7727 – October 17, 2024
Appellee. )
)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Anchorage, Dani Crosby, Judge.
Appearances: Ronald T. West, Anchorage, Appellant.
Cheryl R. Brooking and Maria Smilde, Assistant Attorneys
General, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General,
Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Henderson,
and Pate, Justices. [Borghesan, Justice, not participating.]
HENDERSON, Justice.
INTRODUCTION
At issue in this matter is whether the State’s statutory definition of
sustained yield violates the Alaska Constitution’s sustained yield provision. A plaintiff
sued the State, arguing primarily that the definition of sustained yield under
AS 16.05.255(k) violates article VIII, section 4 of the Alaska Constitution because the
legislature lacked authority to define sustained yield and because the statutory definition
contradicts the constitutional provision. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the State,
concluding that AS 16.05.255(k)’s definition of sustained yield complies with the
Constitution. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the superior court’s judgment.
ALASKA’S SUSTAINED YIELD PROVISIONS
Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution sets forth fundamental principles
of natural resources and wildlife management in this state. 1 When this article was
approved it was both the most comprehensive natural resource management provision
in a state constitution 2 and the first provision to incorporate sustained yield principles
into a state constitution. 3
The Alaska Constitution’s sustained yield clause, contained in article VIII,
section 4, states that “[f]ish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable
resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.”
1
See generally Sagoonick v. State, 503 P.3d 777, 782-85 (Alaska 2022)
(describing origins of article VIII of the Alaska Constitution).
2
GORDON HARRISON, ALASKA LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY,
ALASKA’S CONSTITUTION: A CITIZEN’S GUIDE 129 (5th ed. 2021), http://akleg.gov/do
cs/pdf/citizensguide.pdf (“In drafting [article VIII], delegates were unable to refer to
other state constitutions or the Model State Constitution for ideas and guidance, as none
of them dealt with natural resource policy as broadly as the Alaskans thought necessary.
At the time of Alaska’s constitutional convention, only the Hawaii Constitution
addressed natural resource policy in a separate article, and that article was brief.”
(emphasis omitted)). But cf. William L. Iggiagruk Hensley & John Sky Starkey, Alaska
Native Perspectives on the Alaska Constitution, 35 ALASKA L. REV. 129, 129-37 (2018)
(claiming if there was greater Alaska Native representation at the Constitutional
Convention then there may have been greater protections for Alaska Native rights under
article VIII).
3
GERALD A. MCBEATH, THE ALASKA STATE CONSTITUTION: A
REFERENCE GUIDE 146 (1997).
-2- 7727
Through AS 16.05.255, the State has implemented the Constitution’s
sustained yield clause. 4 In particular, the statute defines “sustained yield” as “the
achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of
human harvest of game, subject to preferences among beneficial uses, on an annual or
periodic basis.”5 The statute defines “intensive management” as the
management of an identified big game prey population
consistent with sustained yield through active management
measures to enhance, extend, and develop the population to
maintain high levels or provide for higher levels of human
harvest, including control of predation and prescribed or
planned use of fire and other habitat improvement
techniques.[6]
We consider West’s arguments in light of these statutory and constitutional provisions.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Complaint
West filed suit in 2021, raising a variety of challenges to AS 16.05.255.
West challenged the constitutionality of AS 16.05.2557 as “an illegal amendment of
Article VIII, Section Four of the Alaska Constitution” because he contended it removed
predators from management for sustained yield. He argued that AS 16.05.255 changed
the meaning of and “violat[ed] Alaska’s Public Trust.” He further urged that the statute
directed the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Board of Game with “mandatory
language” that required the killing of predators “using barbaric methods,” and that it
4
See generally West v. State, Bd. of Game (West I), 248 P.3d 689, 692
(Alaska 2010) (detailing history of Alaska’s statutory and constitutional sustained yield
provisions).
5
AS 16.05.255(k)(4).
6
AS 16.05.255(k)(5).
7
Throughout his early filings West cited to statutes no longer in force or
non-existent statutes. West’s later filings indicate he challenges AS 16.05.255(k).
-3- 7727
created an “exclusive use of predators for hunters and trappers.” He also claimed that
the statute required the State to “abandon science.”
West sought declaratory and injunctive relief. He requested that the court
declare that the statute and underlying regulations are unconstitutional, violate the
State’s public trust obligation, and violate separation of powers principles. He also
requested that the court enjoin the State from enforcing AS 16.05.255 and direct the
State to “manage wildlife in each [Game Management Unit] for sustained yield.”
B. Motion Work And Appeal
West moved for summary judgment, primarily arguing that AS 16.05.255
violates the Alaska Constitution. The State opposed West’s summary judgment motion,
and also moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. The State argued the
court should dismiss the claim under res judicata and collateral estoppel because it
contended that we resolved West’s claims in our 2010 decision in West I.8 In his
opposition to the motion to dismiss, West urged that this case is about the
constitutionality of AS 16.05.255, which was not at issue in West I.
The superior court held oral argument on the State’s motion to dismiss.
Among other points, the State argued that there is no definition of sustained yield in the
Alaska Constitution that the statute could illegally amend, and that West’s claims were
barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. West in turn argued that AS 16.05.255
violates the Alaska Constitution and that this claim was not precluded by prior
litigation. The court noted his complaint contained a “claims for relief” section but
identified no clear cause of action. The court therefore asked West to clarify his cause
8
248 P.3d 689. In West I conservation advocacy groups and West
challenged a 2006 state predator control plan as violating sustained yield under AS
16.05.255 and the Alaska Constitution. Id. at 693. We concluded that sustained yield
in AS 16.05.255 and the Constitution applies to predators, but that the conservation
groups and West failed to prove the 2006 plans violated principles of sustained yield.
Id. at 695-701.
-4- 7727
of action. West clarified that his only claim was that AS 16.05.255 violates the Alaska
Constitution because it defines sustained yield in a manner inconsistent with the
Constitution.
The court denied the State’s motion to dismiss. It determined that
collateral estoppel did not apply because our decision in West I “did not expressly hold
that the statutory provision of sustained yield in AS 16.05.255 is constitutional” and did
not determine “whether the State legislature had the authority to enact a definition of
sustained yield.” The court similarly decided that res judicata did not apply because
West’s clarified cause of action did not “require similar proof to the claims litigated in
[West I].”
Prior to the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, West filed an amended
motion for summary judgment. The motion was largely similar to West’s earlier
motion, except that it contained an additional request for the court to declare that
AS 16.05.255 illegally amends the Alaska Constitution. The State opposed and filed a
cross-motion for summary judgment. Following oral argument the superior court
granted the State’s cross-motion, concluding as a matter of law that the State legislature
did not exceed its constitutional authority in defining sustained yield and that
AS 16.05.255 did not violate the Alaska Constitution.
West appeals, posing a facial challenge to AS 16.05.255. He argues first
that the legislature lacked authority to define sustained yield in statute, and second that
the statutory definition of sustained yield violates the Alaska Constitution.9
9
During oral argument West clarified that his appeal is a facial challenge
to the constitutionality of AS 16.05.255. His briefing appears to raise other arguments;
however, we do not address any other arguments because they are either barred by
collateral estoppel or are not preserved for appeal. See Sykes v. Lawless, 474 P.3d 636,
643 (Alaska 2020) (describing elements of collateral estoppel); McCavit v. Lacher, 447
P.3d 726, 731 (Alaska 2019) (holding we generally decline to review issue not
presented below unless claim may constitute plain error “or the issues (1) do not depend
-5- 7727
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, ‘affirming if the record
presents no genuine issue of material fact and if the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.’ ”10 “We use our independent judgment to review matters of
constitutional or statutory interpretation.”11 “We uphold a statute against a facial
constitutional challenge if despite . . . occasional problems it might create in its
application to specific cases, [it] has a plainly legitimate sweep.” 12
DISCUSSION
The party raising a constitutional challenge “bears the burden to establish
the constitutional violation.”13 In interpreting the Alaska Constitution “we will adopt a
reasonable and practical interpretation in accordance with common sense based upon
the plain meaning and purpose of the provision and the intent of the framers. Moreover,
upon new facts, (2) are closely related to other arguments at trial, and (3) could have
been gleaned from the pleadings” (quoting Hoffman Constr. Co. of Alaska v. U.S.
Fabrication & Erection, Inc., 32 P.3d 346, 351 (Alaska 2001))).
10
Sulzbach v. City & Borough of Sitka, 517 P.3d 7, 13 (Alaska 2022)
(quoting Kelly v. Mun. of Anchorage, 270 P.3d 801, 803 (Alaska 2012)).
11
State v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Nw., 436 P.3d 984, 991 (Alaska
2019) (citing Premera Blue Cross v. State, Dep’t of Com., Cmty. & Econ. Dev., Div. of
Ins., 171 P.3d 1110, 1115 (Alaska 2007)).
12
Kohlhaas v. State, 518 P.3d 1095, 1104 (Alaska 2022) (first alteration
added) (quoting Planned Parenthood of the Great Nw., 436 P.3d at 991-92). We
acknowledge that we have applied the facial challenge standard differently in certain
cases, but we assume for the purposes of this decision that the more lenient facial
challenge standard applies. Compare id., with Ass’n of Vill. Council Presidents Reg’l
Hous. Auth. v. Mael, 507 P.3d 963, 982 (Alaska 2022) (describing facial challenge as
meaning “that there is no set of circumstances under which the statute can be applied
consistent with the requirements of the constitution” (quoting State v. ACLU of Alaska,
204 P.3d 364, 372 (Alaska 2009))). See also State, Dep’t of Educ. & Early Dev. v.
Alexander, Nos. 19083/19113, at *3 (Alaska Supreme Court Order, Jun. 28, 2024).
13
Kohlhaas, 518 P.3d at 1104.
-6- 7727
because these are questions of law, we will consider precedent, reason, and policy.”14
“Legislative history and the historical context, including events preceding ratification,
help define the constitution.” 15 “[W]hen constitutional issues are raised, [we] ha[ve] a
duty to construe a statute, where reasonable, to avoid dangers of unconstitutionality.
Rather than strike a statute down, we will employ a narrowing construction, if one is
reasonably possible.” 16
West argues that the legislature lacks the authority to define sustained
yield, and that the statutory definition is unconstitutional. He claims AS 16.05.255(k)’s
statutory definition of sustained yield is different than the sustained yield definition in
the glossary used by the Alaska Constitutional Convention delegates when writing
article VIII, section 4, 17 and that the statute contradicts and attempts to improperly
amend the Constitution. West emphasizes that we previously referenced the glossary
in West I 18 and maintains that we must therefore have recognized the glossary definition
as determinative. He also claims that the statutory definition of sustained yield fails to
provide for the scientific management and conservation of resources that were intended
by the framers of the Constitution.
14
State v. Alaska Legis. Council, 515 P.3d 117, 123 (Alaska 2022) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Alaska Legis. Council v. Knowles, 21 P.3d 367, 370
(Alaska 2001)).
15
Wielechowski v. State, 403 P.3d 1141, 1147 (Alaska 2017) (quoting State
v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 366 P.3d 86, 90 (Alaska 2016)).
16
Kohlhaas, 518 P.3d at 1104 (first alteration in original) (quoting ACLU of
Alaska, 204 P.3d at 373).
17
The Resources Committee of the Constitutional Convention developed a
glossary for delegates to consider in developing the natural resources sections of the
Alaska Constitution, but this glossary was not incorporated into the Alaska
Constitution. COMM. ON RES., PAPERS OF THE ALASKA CONST. CONVENTION, FOLDER
210, TERMS (1955) https://www.akleg.gov/pdf/billfiles/ConstitutionalConvention/Fold
er%20210.pdf.
18
248 P.3d 689, 695 (Alaska 2010).
-7- 7727
We disagree. The plain meaning of the Alaska Constitution’s sustained
yield provision, as well as the framers’ intent and precedent, all reinforce the
legislature’s authority to define sustained yield in statute,19 as well as the statute’s
compliance with the Alaska Constitution.
A. Plain Meaning
The plain meaning of the statutory and constitutional sustained yield
provisions supports the legislature’s lawmaking authority in this area and the
constitutionality of the statute.
Article VIII, section 4 of the Alaska Constitution states that “[f]ish,
forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State
shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to
preferences among beneficial uses.” Looking to other sections of the Alaska
Constitution gives context to the role of the legislature in furthering the sustained yield
principle. Article II, section 1 delegates lawmaking powers to the legislature. And
article VIII, section 2 states, “The legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including
land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.” These three sections together
make clear that the legislature has authority to enact statutes such as AS 16.05.255 in
order to manage the State’s natural resources consistent with the sustained yield
principle.
Considering more particularly whether AS 16.05.255 is consistent with
the Constitution’s sustained yield principle, we observe that although the text of article
VIII, section 4 and AS 16.05.255(k) do not perfectly mirror each other, they contain
19
The State claims “this Court’s precedent assumes that the legislature has
authority to refine the meaning of constitutional language by passing statutes.” We do
not recognize a broad authority of the legislature to define the meaning of terms in the
Constitution, but conclude here that the legislature had authority to define sustained
yield in statute to effectuate the sustained yield principle in the Constitution.
-8- 7727
similar language and express similar ideas about sustained yield. Both the statute and
the Constitution contemplate management of natural resources such that those resources
are maintained and may be enjoyed in perpetuity.20 And both the statute and the
Constitution acknowledge that the achievement and maintenance of “sustained yield”
are “subject to preferences among beneficial uses.”21 Thus the statutory and
constitutional text both broadly reflect congruous sentiments regarding sustained yield.
And while AS 16.05.255(k) reflects a more specific sustained yield policy
goal or preference than that contained in the Constitution, the Constitution specifically
anticipates and allows for such preferences.22 Alaska Statute 16.05.255(k)(5)’s
definition of sustained yield includes a preference for human harvest, stating sustained
yield involves management to “support a high level of human harvest of game, subject
to preferences among beneficial uses.” But the statute’s expression of a more specific
sustained yield goal or preference is consistent with the flexible Constitutional
language.23 It is also consistent with the legislature’s constitutional responsibility to
provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of the natural resources of
the State for the maximum benefit of its people. That is, the Constitution anticipates
that the legislature will distill the very broad sustained yield principle into specific laws
that shape the management of resources, and incorporate a range of preferences about
how to maintain resources in perpetuity and what is of maximum benefit to the people
of this state.
20
Compare Alaska Const. art. VIII, §4, with AS 16.05.255(k)(5).
21
Compare Alaska Const. art. VIII, §4, with AS 16.05.255(k)(5).
22
Compare Alaska Const. art. VIII, §4, with AS 16.05.255(k)(1)-(5).
23
Compare Alaska Const. art. VIII, §4, with AS 16.05.255(k)(5); see also
Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1, 7-8 (Alaska 1999) (observing “flexibility” of
Constitutional sustained yield requirement).
-9- 7727
Additionally, West’s argument that AS 16.05.255(k) somehow requires
the abandonment of science, is without merit. 24 Although AS 16.05.255(k) does not in
itself contain the word “science,” this does not mean that the statutory subsection either
requires or even suggests the abandonment of science in managing for sustained yield.25
B. Intent Of The Framers
Both historical context and the framers’ intent in developing article VIII,
section 4 further support the constitutionality of the statute.
The proceedings of the Alaska Constitutional Convention reinforce the
idea that sustained yield was meant to be interpreted broadly and that it would be within
the legislature’s purview to more particularly implement resource management
principles consistent with the broad sustained yield principle. The Resources
Committee of the Constitutional Convention provided the delegates a glossary that
included a definition of sustained yield:
As to forests, timber volume, rate of growth, and acreage of
timber type can be determined with some degree of
accuracy. For fish, for wildlife, and for some other
replenishable resources such as huckleberries, as an
example, it is difficult or even impossible to measure
accurately the factors by which a calculated sustained yield
could be determined. Yet the term “sustained yield
principle” is used in connection with management of such
resources. When so used it denotes conscious application
insofar as practicable of principles of management intended
to sustain the yield of the resource being managed. That
24
At oral argument West clarified he challenges the constitutionality of
AS 16.05.255(k) and is not challenging any specific management plan or decision, so
we do not address any claims related to the use of science, or lack thereof, in specific
management plans.
25
We also observe that the State acknowledges that it “uses science to meet
its constitutional mandates in Article VIII.”
- 10 - 7727
broad meaning is the meaning of the term as used in the
Article.[26]
This glossary definition emphasized the “broad meaning” of sustained yield and the
importance of “conscious application” of principles of management. 27 The
intentionally broad nature of sustained yield as a concept suggests that there must be
some flexibility in implementing the principle. Additionally, the glossary’s discussion
of managing resources in a manner intended to sustain the yield of those resources
aligns with AS 16.05.255(k)’s statutory provisions for intensive management consistent
with sustained yield.28 The glossary definition is not identical to the statutory definition
of sustained yield. Nevertheless, the glossary definition encompasses, and is consistent
with, AS 16.05.255(k)’s definition of sustained yield and supports the statute’s
constitutionality.
Delegate Riley, representing the Natural Resources Committee at the
Constitutional Convention, explained that the Natural Resources Committee used the
glossary definition in drafting article VIII, section 4.29 However, when asked whether
defining the sustained yield program with regard to fisheries would be delegated to the
legislature, Delegate Riley confirmed that effectuating sustained yield programs would
indeed be delegated to the legislature.30 Riley explained to the Convention that the
Natural Resources Committee “ha[d] in mind no narrow definition of ‘sustained yield,’
as is used, for example, in forestry, but the broad premise that insofar as possible a
principle of sustained yield shall be used with respect to administration of those
26
COMM. ON RES., PAPERS OF THE ALASKA CONST. CONVENTION, FOLDER
210, TERMS (1955).
27
Id.28
See AS 16.05.255(k)(4).
29
4 Proceedings of the Alaska Constitutional Convention (PACC) 2457
(Jan. 17, 1956) (statement of Del. Burke Riley).
30
Id.- 11 - 7727
resources which are susceptible of sustained yield, and where it is desirable.” 31 The
Convention proceedings thus reflect some intent that the legislature would implement
what is a broad principle of sustained yield.
Constitutional Convention delegates prepared a “Report to the People of
Alaska” before the ratification vote that discusses sustained yield. 32 In this report the
delegates explained:
The [natural resources] [A]rticle’s primary purpose is to
balance maximum use of natural resources with their
continued availability to future generations. In keeping with
that purpose, all replenishable resources are to be
administered, insofar as practicable, on the sustained yield
principle. This includes fish, forests, wildlife, and
grasslands, among others.[33]
This discussion of sustained yield aligns with AS 16.05.255(k)’s definition. It focuses
in part on “maximum use of natural resources,” 34 a concept similar to the statute’s
emphasis on maintaining populations for “high level of human harvest of game.”35
Both the Report to the People and the statutory definition of sustained yield also
emphasize ensuring that natural resources remain for future generations. The report
explicitly states the goal of managing resources for “continued availability to future
generations”36 and the statute describes this as “maintenance in perpetuity.”37 These
31
Id. at 2451.
32
THE ALASKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, PROPOSED CONSTITUTION
FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA: A REPORT TO THE PEOPLE OF ALASKA (1956).
33
Id.
34
Id.
35
AS 16.05.255(k)(5).
36
THE ALASKA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, PROPOSED CONSTITUTION
FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA: A REPORT TO THE PEOPLE OF ALASKA (1956).
37
AS 16.05.255(k)(5).
- 12 - 7727
consistencies between the report and the statute further support the statute’s consistency
with the Constitution.
West argues that when AS 16.05.255(k) was enacted in 1994, there was
substantial public opposition, and Lieutenant Governor John B. Coghill, who had
served as a Constitutional Convention delegate, wrote that sustained yield had already
been defined in the glossary used by the delegates. However, Coghill’s comments in
1994 largely support the legislature’s ability to define sustained yield and the definition
in AS 16.05.255(k).38 Coghill referenced the glossary definition of sustained yield and
maintained that “the meaning of ‘sustained yield’ was clear when the Alaska
constitution was drafted.” 39 But he insisted the clear meaning of sustained yield “was
for replenishable resources to provide a high or maximum sustained level of
consumptive utilization for humans.”40 This is in line with the definition of sustained
yield provided in AS 16.05.255(k). He also explained that “[t]he Constitution directs
the legislature to provide citizens the opportunity to utilize and develop our
resources.”41 These comments support the framers’ intent to delegate sustained yield
management authority to the legislature, as well as the consistency between the
statutory definition of sustained yield and the sustained yield principle stated in the
Constitution.
The delegates’ discussion of sustained yield during the Constitutional
Convention and the surrounding historical context support the broad nature of the
38
See John B. Coghill, Comment Letter on Committee Substitute for Senate
Bill (C.S.S.B.) 77, 18th Leg., 2d Sess. (1994), “Sustained Yield”: Alaska’s
Constitutional Mandate for Action (Jan. 28, 1994).
39
Id. at 2-4.
40
Id. at 2.
41
Id. at 8.
- 13 - 7727
sustained yield principle, the legislature’s authority in this area, and the consistency
between AS 16.05.255 and article VIII, section 4 of the Constitution.
C. Relevant Precedent
Consistent with the language of article VIII, section 4, we have interpreted
the sustained yield clause as a broad concept and decided the State has discretion in
establishing management priorities. 42 Our precedent thus reinforces the legislature’s
ability to define the contours of sustained yield as it has in AS 16.05.255(k).
We have cited to the glossary from the Constitutional Convention in
interpreting sustained yield,43 but contrary to West’s argument, we have not held that
the glossary is part of the constitutional text, and we certainly have not suggested that
the glossary prohibits separate statutory definitions of the included terms. In
interpreting the Alaska Constitution we consider the intent of the framers.44 Consistent
with the above discussion of the framers’ intent, we have cited the glossary in our
precedent so as to better understand what the framers contemplated or intended in using
42
West cites our decision in Bess v. Ulmer, 985 P.2d 979 (Alaska 1999), to
argue that AS 16.05.255 constitutes an illegal constitutional amendment. But our
decision in Bess does not apply here, where the statutory provision at issue does not
amend or contradict the Constitution. Cf. id. at 981, 987.
43
See Sitka Tribe of Alaska v. State, Dep’t of Fish & Game, 540 P.3d 893,
900 (Alaska 2023) (citing COMM. ON RES., PAPERS OF THE ALASKA CONST.
CONVENTION, FOLDER 210, TERMS (1955)); Sagoonick v. State, 503 P.3d 777, 783 n.10
(Alaska 2022) (citing same); Cook Inlet Fisherman’s Fund v. State, Dep’t of Fish &
Game, 357 P.3d 789, 792 n.2 (Alaska 2015) (quoting West I, 248 P.3d 689, 695 (Alaska
2010)); West I, 248 P.3d at 695 (quoting COMM. ON RES., PAPERS OF THE ALASKA
CONST. CONVENTION, FOLDER 210, TERMS (1955)); Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990
P.2d 1, 7-8 (Alaska 1999) (quoting same).
44
Hootch v. Alaska State-Operated Sch. Sys., 536 P.2d 793, 800 (Alaska
1975) (“While prior practice and the framers’ purposes are not necessarily conclusive,
an historical perspective is essential to an enlightened contemporary interpretation of
our constitution.”).
- 14 - 7727
certain language within the Constitution.45 The glossary does not, however, preclude
the legislature from passing a statute operationally defining sustained yield.
In fact our precedent reinforces the legislature’s discretion to define
sustained yield in statute, as well as AS 16.05.255’s constitutionality. In Native Village
of Elim v. State, for example, we analyzed the sustained yield clause in the Constitution
by looking to the intent of the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, and we
concluded that “the primary emphasis of the framers’ discussions and the glossary’s
definition of sustained yield is on the flexibility of the sustained yield requirement and
its status as a guiding principle rather than a concrete, predefined process.” 46 We
decided that “[t]he plain language of the provision requires resource managers to apply
sustained yield principles; it does not mandate the use of a predetermined formula,
quantitative or qualitative.” 47 We determined that the Board of Fisheries did not
“abuse[] its considerable discretion in developing a sustained yield policy” as
promulgated in a regulation.48
Further, in West I, we interpreted the Constitution’s sustained yield clause
and AS 16.05.255’s sustained yield provisions, concluding they both required
management of predator populations for sustained yield and allowed the state to
determine how to balance predator and prey populations in its management decisions.49
45
See cases cited supra note 43.
46
Native Vill. of Elim, 990 P.2d at 7-8 (analyzing proceedings of the
Constitutional Convention and glossary used by delegates (first citing 4 PACC 2456-
57 (Jan. 17, 1956); and then quoting COMM. ON RES., PAPERS OF THE ALASKA CONST.
CONVENTION, FOLDER 210, TERMS (1955))).
47
Id. at 7.
48
Id. at 8-9.
49
West I, 248 P.3d 689, 697-98 (Alaska 2010). We do not disturb our
decision that the sustained yield clause in statute and in the Constitution require the
state to manage both predator and prey populations for sustained yield. Id. at 695-99.
- 15 - 7727
We looked to the glossary definition of sustained yield as indicating that sustained yield
has a “broad meaning.” 50 We analyzed the text of the Constitution’s sustained yield
clause, concluding that the words “ ‘subject to preferences among beneficial uses’
suggest[] that the legislature and the Board have some discretion to establish
management priorities for Alaska’s wildlife.”51 We did not determine the
constitutionality of AS 16.05.255, but noted the consistency between AS 16.05.255 and
article VIII, section 4. 52
In Sagoonick v. State, we considered claims that the State had violated
constitutional natural resources provisions and constitutional rights in the context of
requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. 53 We “recognize[d] that Article VIII is
not a complete delegation of power to the legislature.”54 We held that the Constitutional
Convention delegates designed article VIII, including the sustained yield clause, to
create a broad framework for natural resource management “[r]ather than developing a
detailed constitutional code.”55 We determined that “[a]rticle VIII, sections 1 and 2 of
the Alaska Constitution express Alaska’s resource development policy and direct the
legislature to implement it.” 56 And we decided that article VIII “reflects careful
consideration of each government branch’s role in managing Alaska’s resources and
textually establishes the legislature’s importance in this policy-making area.”57 We
50
Id. at 695.
51
Id. at 696.
52
Id. at 698.
53
503 P.3d 777, 789-91 (Alaska 2022).
54
Id. at 796 (citing Brooks v. Wright, 971 P.2d 1025, 1033 (Alaska 1999)).
55
Id. at 783 (citing Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1, 7 (Alaska 1999)).
56
Id. at 783-84.
57
Id. at 785.
- 16 - 7727
declined to grant plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief in part because this would
“infring[e] on an area constitutionally committed to the legislature.” 58
Most recently in Sitka Tribe of Alaska v. State, Department of Fish and
Game we considered whether the constitutional sustained yield clause requires “the
Department [of Fish and Game] to provide all relevant information to the Board” of
Fisheries as part of the Board’s decision-making process.59 We determined that “the
hard look standard already requires the Department [of Fish and Game] to consider
relevant information and ‘engage[] in reasoned decision making.’ ” 60 We therefore
“decline[d] to create a constitutional requirement that is not in the plain language of
article VIII, section 4 of the Alaska Constitution and that would ‘infring[e] on an area
constitutionally committed to the legislature,’ which the legislature has delegated to the
Department and the Board.”61 We recognized the legislature’s law-making authority
under article VIII, section 4, which supports the legislature’s authority to apply a more
specific definition to the broad constitutional concept of sustained yield. Our precedent
recognizes the legislature’s discretion in this area, and the legislature acted within that
authority in defining sustained yield in AS 16.05.255(k).
In light of the plain meaning of the text of both AS 16.05.255 and article
VIII, section 4 of the Alaska Constitution, evidence of the framers’ intent related to the
sustained yield principle, and our relevant precedent, we conclude that the legislature
was authorized to define “sustained yield” as it did in implementing the Constitution’s
sustained yield principle, and that its statutory definition of sustained yield is consistent
58
Id. at 796.
59
540 P.3d 893, 899-900 (Alaska 2023).
60
Id. at 901-02 (second alteration in original) (quoting Sagoonick, 503 P.3d
at 803).
61
Id. at 902 (second alteration in original) (quoting Sagoonick, 503 P.3d at
796) (citing AS 16.05.258; AS 16.05.020).
- 17 - 7727
with article VIII, section 4 of the Constitution. We therefore conclude that
AS 16.05.255 has a plainly legitimate sweep, and we reject West’s facial constitutional
challenge.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court’s summary judgment order.
- 18 - 7727