342 P.3d 825
Alaska2014Background
- Board sought to regulate movement of Kodiak bison by redefining “feral” to move privately owned animals into state game status.
- Amendments to 5 AAC 92.029(d)(2) and 5 AAC 85.010(a)(1) authorized public hunts of Kodiak bison and declared off-lease bison feral.
- Dorman owned unconfined bison on 45,100 acres of state leases; bison wandered 6 miles off lease and sometimes remained off lease for years.
- Bison were not branded; ownership was typically proven by lease status rather than marks.
- Board and Department argued the amendments addressed off-lease herds and habitat concerns; Dorman challenged regulatory authority as to reasonableness and consistency with statute.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for the State on most claims; Dorman appealed, arguing regulation was arbitrary and invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Board's feral-definition regulation reasonable and not arbitrary? | Dorman argues regulation arbitrarily reclassifies private bison as game. | Board contends regulation reasonably implements feral-domestic distinctions under statute. | No; regulation is arbitrary and not reasonably related to statutory goals. |
| Does the regulation conflict with statutes on game status of domestic mammals? | AS 16.05.940(19) allows feral domestic animals to be regulated as game; domestic mammals may be excluded. | Regulation should classify feral animals as game when off lease. | Yes; regulation conflicts with statutes by unreasonably classifying lawfully owned domestic mammals as game. |
| Did Board exceed authority by enabling emergency hunting and off-lease takings? | Regulatory amendments improperly curtailed private ownership and due process. | Emergency-hunt provisions were within Board’s authority to protect resources and habitat. | Regulatory amendments invalid; authority to authorize such hunts is not upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. State, Bd. of Game, 248 P.3d 689 (Alaska 2010) (regulation must be reasonable and not arbitrary to implement statutes)
- Wilber v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n, 187 P.3d 460 (Alaska 2008) (regulatory reasonableness and statutory alignment reviewed de novo)
- Gilbert v. State, Dep’t of Fish & Game, Bd. of Fisheries, 803 P.2d 391 (Alaska 1990) (regulation must be reasonably related to goal and properly grounded in statute)
- Interior Alaska Airboat Ass’n, Inc. v. State, Bd. of Game, 18 P.3d 686 (Alaska 2001) (requires close, reasoned analysis of problems addressed by regulation)