Ahtna Tene Nené v. State, Department of Fish & Game, 288 P.3d 452

2009 Board of Game replaced Tier II with Tier I two-hunt system (community and individual) for Nelchina basin; Ahtna tribe obtained a community harvest permit under the new rules.
Manning challenged the 2009 regulation; Ahtna and AFWCF intervened; superior court granted summary judgment enjoining the community harvest permit as unconstitutional.
Superior court later deemed the community residency requirement unconstitutional and ordered a sharing opportunity for non-locals; Board and tribes took further actions.
Board amended regulations in Oct. 2010 to allow any group of 25+ Alaskans to apply for a community harvest permit regardless of residency and changed the individual Tier I hunt to annual permits (effective 2011).
The amendments rendered the 2009 regulation moot; the dispute shifted to the validity of the current scheme, and this appeal addresses mootness and fee issues rather than the merits.
The court ultimately vacated the fee awards against Ahtna and Manning, while leaving AFWCF’s fee award undisturbed (and noting Manning’s fee award was improper).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot.	Manning contends the dispute remains live as to residency-based allocations under the challenged regulation.	Ahtna/State argue the 2009 regulation is no longer in effect and issues are moot.	Yes; the appeal is moot because the challenged regulation was replaced and issues are not live.
Whether the public interest exception to mootness applies.	Ahtna/AFWCF claim issues are capable of repetition and important to the public.	Regulatory changes render the issues non-ripe for review.	The public interest exception does not apply.
Whether Manning, a pro se non-attorney, may recover attorney's fees under Rule 82 or AS 09.60.010.	Manning, though pro se, held a law degree and seeks fees.	Non-attorney pro se litigants may not recover attorney's fees; Manning should be treated as lay pro se.	Manning may not recover attorney's fees; fees vacated.

Ulmer v. Alaska Rest. & Beverage Ass'n, 33 P.3d 773 (Alaska 2001) (standing and mootness principles applied in administrative challenges)
Mullins v. Local Boundary Comm'n, 226 P.3d 1012 (Alaska 2010) (election/voting mootness context (relevance to mootness analysis))
Bernhardt v. Alaska, 794 P.2d 579 (Alaska 1990) (attorney's fees for pro se litigants; Rule 82 distinctions)
Shearer v. Mundt, 36 P.3d 1196 (Alaska 2001) (attorney/pro se fee distinctions; policy rationales)