Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Alaska Won

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    1,181

    Thumbs up Alaska Won

    Not sure if this is the correct place to post this, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State OF Alaska in the case about the hunter using his hovercraft to hunt moose!!!!!!!!

  2. #2
    Member AKducks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    485

    Default

    http://www.alaskapublic.org/2016/03/...nps-authority/

    just to clear things up, a guy didn't win his right to hunt moose using a hovercraft, the state won the right (which was given to them) to regulate state lands including navigable water ways. The state could decide tomorrow to ban hovercrafts and there is nothing sturgeon could do about it.
    Last edited by AKducks; 03-22-2016 at 09:58. Reason: didn't finish my thought

  3. #3
    Member Trapak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Quite surprised to see this as a unanimous decision, but thankful for it. Hopefully the lower courts won't challenge this. Here's the last 2 paragraphs of the SCOTUS ruling on Sturgeon vs. Frost.
    "Given this determination, we also do not decide whether the Park Service has authority under Section 100751(b) to regulate Sturgeon’s activities on the Nation River, even if the river is not “public” land, or whether—as Sturgeon argues—any such authority is limited by ANILCA. Fin- ally, we do not consider the Park Service’s alternative argument that it has authority under ANILCA over both “public” and “non-public” lands within the boundaries of conservation system units in Alaska, to the extent a regulation is written to apply specifically to both types of land. We leave those arguments to the lower courts for consideration as necessary.
    The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    It is so ordered."

    Alaska Dispatch brief article about the ruling.
    http://www.adn.com/article/20160322/...hovercraft-use

  4. #4
    Member JR2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    That may be true, but this ruling affirms the states right to manage those waters and that is a big deal.
    2007 Kingfisher 2825 - Stor Fisk

    Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top. -- Hunter S. Thompson

  5. #5

    Default

    Who ever would have guessed a unanimous decision anywhere near this close to what we were hoping for. Yes, it does go back to the lower court, but not without comment. The SCOTUS pretty much told the lower Court how to rule. The lower Court could get their hackles up and try to buck the direction they have been given by the SCOTUS, but I doubt they will. Unanimous, still can't believe it.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Anchorage
    Posts
    315

    Default

    As I opined in the Power Boating forum (I think), the risk is in the questions that the Court specifically didn't address:

    - Is the water "Public Land" under ANILCA?
    - Can the NPS regulate the water and its use under the provisions of ANILCA?

    My read of the decision was that the Court stated that the provisions of ANILCA govern the waters and the NPS can't use generic regulations to trump specific statutory provisions of ANILCA. My concern is that the Court specifically left open the question of whether the waters were "Public" and/or if the NPS could otherwise regulate them as permitted under ANILCA (vs. generic regulations which they relied upon).

    Glad to see it was unanimous, but since the Court addressed only a narrow regulatory/statutory interpretation question, I don't think this provides as good a result as expected.
    Back in AK

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Gakona Ak
    Posts
    1,494

    Default

    Not sure if I agree with you. It appears they the SC kicked it back to the Circuit Court (?) making no decision.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •