Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: TIER II Hunt - Supreme Court weighs in

  1. #1
    Member jmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    At the end of the cul-de-sac
    Posts
    964

    Default TIER II Hunt - Supreme Court weighs in

    I know the discussion of TIER II hunts has come up on this board before. As an attorney here in Anchorage, I get all the Supreme Court opinions when issued and the Court issued an opinion today on TIER II hunts. For some reason I vaguely recall some people here blasting Judge Tan awhile back for his ruling in this case (although it could have been for something else too?).

    Anyways, one of the things that annoys me about this board sometimes (ok, society in general) is that people tend to chime in on a Court's ruling and say "no, it should be this or that" without ever having read the actual Court ruling. So I thought I would provide the Court's opinion for all of you to look at and then debate amongst yourselves. I don't really have an opinion on this issue as I have no desire hunt TIER II. Hope it proves useful to everyone. Enjoy.

    http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sp-6138.pdf

  2. #2
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default Thanks!

    jmg,

    It's folks like you that make this place such a good resource. I've been following the Manning case, reading this decision now, and appreciate you informing us all on this.
    Mucho thanks,

  3. #3

    Default

    My case against ADFG (Supreme Ct Opinion 6138) was affirmed by the Alaska Supreme Court on Friday July 6, after three years before the Supreme Court, and four years in the Superior Court. Briefly, the court affirmed that Tier II eligibility factors concerning alternatives within 150 miles of the applicants community of residency and awarding a maximum of the community average, (the game ratio regulation) violated equal protections and equal treatment of the laws. The best hunter of the community was limited to the "average" of the community. This was Superior Court Judge Tan's ruling in May 2003, which then constructively gave all applicants 20 points more. This enabled 68 communities to be Tier II eligible again, including Indian, Girdwood, Hope, Kenai, Sterling, Homer, Fox, Trapper Creek, Kasilof, and many more communities which by the ADFG point caps were automatically eliminated, no possibility of getting any Tier II permit. The ADFG/Board regulation controlling Tier II eligibility by community of residency and game ratio alternatives has been rightfully struck down and affirmed.
    Ken Manning.
    http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sp-6138.pdf

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskasourdough View Post
    My case against ADFG (Supreme Ct Opinion 6138) was affirmed by the Alaska Supreme Court on Friday July 6, after three years before the Supreme Court, and four years in the Superior Court. Briefly, the court affirmed that Tier II eligibility factors concerning alternatives within 150 miles of the applicants community of residency and awarding a maximum of the community average, (the game ratio regulation) violated equal protections and equal treatment of the laws. The best hunter of the community was limited to the "average" of the community. This was Superior Court Judge Tan's ruling in May 2003, which then constructively gave all applicants 20 points more. This enabled 68 communities to be Tier II eligible again, including Indian, Girdwood, Hope, Kenai, Sterling, Homer, Fox, Trapper Creek, Kasilof, and many more communities which by the ADFG point caps were automatically eliminated, no possibility of getting any Tier II permit. The ADFG/Board regulation controlling Tier II eligibility by community of residency and game ratio alternatives has been rightfully struck down and affirmed.
    Ken Manning.
    http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sp-6138.pdf
    I read it and not being an attorney, I walk away from it feeling as though the courts used every trick in the book they could think of to retain the notion that Alaskans should be classed. Just how far reaching does the plaintiff have to go, to get the judges attention that will once and for put an end to the discrimation and bias that is so deeply entrenched. I and I am sure others are anxiously wanting to assist you in your next endeavor. Please post up your contact information and describe the basis and jest of your next lawsiut involving the Tier II issue.
    Thanks for your previous effort and good luck on the next phase.

  5. #5
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default don't be fooled...

    ...by the hyperbole about this. Alaskasourdough first logged on here, didn't tell anyone who he was, then later said he was gonna sue the state over the harvest requirements on the new Tier II application.

    In the pdf file listed, that links to the Supreme Court decision, this little part is in there:
    "Manning argues that these criteria [cost of groceries and gas] are not narrowly tailored because criteria based on income would be a more accurate measure of dependence on subsistence hunting."I am not a lawyer either but I can read and understand English. Alaskasourdough, according to the court documents, argued that criteria based on income would be a more accurate way of gauging who qualifies for the Tier II permits. There is a lot more to this as well that I won't go into. Be careful who you choose to support, and what you wish for.

  6. #6

    Default Misquoted

    [quote=bushrat;119524].. criteria based on income would be a more accurate measure of dependence on subsistence hunting.

    These are NOT my words. I believe they are the opposing attorney (Assistant AG Kevin Saxby, representing the State ADFG), in a oral argument in the lower court, with the clear intent to mislead the court. Read the transcripts, those are not my words. Who would think an attorney would misquote or mislead the court?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    731

    Default i know what i wish for..

    a system that does not discriminate.

    gas?
    how long you've lived here?
    what about young people ?

    the whole thing is ridiculous.

  8. #8
    Member jmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    At the end of the cul-de-sac
    Posts
    964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskasourdough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    [
    These are NOT my words. I believe they are the opposing attorney (Assistant AG Kevin Saxby, representing the State ADFG), in a oral argument in the lower court, with the clear intent to mislead the court. Read the transcripts, those are not my words. Who would think an attorney would misquote or mislead the court?
    As an attorney, I sort of take offense at that, but if you were the losing party here, I guess I understand why you would say that.
    a system that does not discriminate.

    gas?
    how long you've lived here?
    what about young people ?

    the whole thing is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

    I honestly can't say that I am deeply entrenched in all of the Tier/subsistence rights that others around here are. My take on things like this, however, is this. I live in Anchorage. I make a very decent living, and I buy quality chicken and occasionally beef at the store for about $2-4 per pound. I am paying about $3 a gallon for gas right now. My utility bills in the worst time of year are about $400 per month for gas and electric to heat my house and run all the things that run.

    While I can complain about these prices until I am blue in the face, compared to those that live in say Bethel, Kotzebue, Nome, McCarthy, the list goes on and on, I am doing quite well. I saw awhile back that some places are paying $9 for a gallon of milk. MILK!!! Gas probably $5-6 per gallon, and meat, I don't even want to venture a guess. Am I really one who is going to stand there and say that the system is so screwed up and is discriminatory because DNR allows the people in Bethel to shoot a caribou before I am allowed to? Nope, not me.

    I realize hunting is a deep issue up here and maybe I am just missing the point, but I would gladly allow someone making less than $20k per year (or even less in many places) that would have to pay out the nose for food to shoot their 'bou ahead of me. I am ok if you disagree with me, no big deal. But if you decide to flame me over it, I would prefer that you first move yourself up a notch or two in income tax brackets regardless of how much money you make so that I can pay less in taxes. Just because I make a good living I have to pay 25% to the government while others pay only 15% because they make less? Same concept, which I am perfectly fine with.

    Just my $.02.

  9. #9

    Default

    OK, I appologize if my comment insulted you. Let me put it in context - the court erronerously states that I argued income would be a better determination on individual ability. I never argued that. The opposing attorney, who new he had a loosing case then, was trying to discredit my case by claiming my suggestion that income be partially used with other factors to determine an individual's ability. He mislead the court. The Supreme Court picked up on that false claim, and quoted it. Not my words, but you wouldn't know that reading the opinion.
    I think you can tell as an attorney, the the author did not agree with affirming the decision, and really wanted to reverse. But they had to look at the bottom line of the case - affirm and community of residency did not control (even though they never admitted that the point scoring process was eligibility by commuinity-based points, ie, that IS RESIDENCY BASED ELIGIBILITY, not matter what you call it!), or they could reverse and continue to deny entire communities contrary to decades of decisions striking down residency based eligibility. The decision was very poorly written in my opion because it did not address key merits of the case, ie., compliance with the enabling statute, etc. The partial dissent Justice Mathews agreed. For a decision that took 3 years, it was poor and failed to make a clear analysis of the facts of the case with constitutional holdings. But only the parties could know that, as I am sure you are aware.

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Marshall
    Posts
    1,975

    Default Sour Grapes...

    & the fox continue to amaze me even after 1000's of years after the fable...

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
  •