Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258 (2026)

Subsistence use and allocation of fish and game

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 16.05.258. Subsistence use and allocation of fish and game.
(a) Except in nonsubsistence areas, the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game shall identify the fish stocks and game populations, or portions of stocks or populations, that are customarily and traditionally taken or used for subsistence. The commissioner shall provide recommendations to the boards concerning the stock and population identifications. The boards shall make identifications required under this subsection after receipt of the commissioner's recommendations.

(b) The appropriate board shall determine whether a portion of a fish stock or game population identified under (a) of this section can be harvested consistent with sustained yield. If a portion of a stock or population can be harvested consistent with sustained yield, the board shall determine the amount of the harvestable portion that is reasonably necessary for subsistence uses and
     (1) if the harvestable portion of the stock or population is sufficient to provide for all consumptive uses, the appropriate board
          (A) shall adopt regulations that provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses of those stocks or populations;

          (B) shall adopt regulations that provide for other uses of those stocks or populations, subject to preferences among beneficial uses; and

          (C) may adopt regulations to differentiate among uses;

     (2) if the harvestable portion of the stock or population is sufficient to provide for subsistence uses and some, but not all, other consumptive uses, the appropriate board
          (A) shall adopt regulations that provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses of those stocks or populations;

          (B) may adopt regulations that provide for other consumptive uses of those stocks or populations; and

          (C) shall adopt regulations to differentiate among consumptive uses that provide for a preference for the subsistence uses, if regulations are adopted under (B) of this paragraph;

     (3) if the harvestable portion of the stock or population is sufficient to provide for subsistence uses, but no other consumptive uses, the appropriate board shall
          (A) determine the portion of the stocks or populations that can be harvested consistent with sustained yield; and

          (B) adopt regulations that eliminate other consumptive uses in order to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses; and

     (4) if the harvestable portion of the stock or population is not sufficient to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses, the appropriate board shall
          (A) adopt regulations eliminating consumptive uses, other than subsistence uses;

          (B) distinguish among subsistence users, through limitations based on
                (i) the customary and direct dependence on the fish stock or game population by the subsistence user for human consumption as a mainstay of livelihood;

                (ii) the proximity of the domicile of the subsistence user to the stock or population; and

                (iii) the ability of the subsistence user to obtain food if subsistence use is restricted or eliminated.

(c) The boards may not permit subsistence hunting or fishing in a nonsubsistence area. The boards, acting jointly, shall identify by regulation the boundaries of nonsubsistence areas. A nonsubsistence area is an area or community where dependence upon subsistence is not a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life of the area or community. In determining whether dependence upon subsistence is a principal characteristic of the economy, culture, and way of life of an area or community under this subsection, the boards shall jointly consider the relative importance of subsistence in the context of the totality of the following socio-economic characteristics of the area or community:
     (1) the social and economic structure;

     (2) the stability of the economy;

     (3) the extent and the kinds of employment for wages, including full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal employment;

     (4) the amount and distribution of cash income among those domiciled in the area or community;

     (5) the cost and availability of goods and services to those domiciled in the area or community;

     (6) the variety of fish and game species used by those domiciled in the area or community;

     (7) the seasonal cycle of economic activity;

     (8) the percentage of those domiciled in the area or community participating in hunting and fishing activities or using wild fish and game;

     (9) the harvest levels of fish and game by those domiciled in the area or community;

     (10) the cultural, social, and economic values associated with the taking and use of fish and game;

     (11) the geographic locations where those domiciled in the area or community hunt and fish;

     (12) the extent of sharing and exchange of fish and game by those domiciled in the area or community;

     (13) additional similar factors the boards establish by regulation to be relevant to their determinations under this subsection.

(d) Fish stocks and game populations, or portions of fish stocks and game populations not identified under (a) of this section may be taken only under nonsubsistence regulations.

(e) Takings and uses of fish and game authorized under this section are subject to regulations regarding open and closed areas, seasons, methods and means, marking and identification requirements, quotas, bag limits, harvest levels, and sex, age, and size limitations. Takings and uses of resources authorized under this section are subject to AS 16.05.831 and AS 16.30.

(f) For purposes of this section, “reasonable opportunity” means an opportunity, as determined by the appropriate board, that allows a subsistence user to participate in a subsistence hunt or fishery that provides a normally diligent participant with a reasonable expectation of success of taking of fish or game.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Manning, 161 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Manning, 161 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2007). · cites it 34× “AS 16.05.258. First, because we conclude that the game ratio is unconstitutional, that ratio cannot be sustained regardless of whether or not it is a valid exercise of the Board's authority.”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 83 P.3d 1060 (Alaska 2004). · cites it 31× “CONCLUSION We consequently REVERSE the summary judgment that declared invalid the inclusion of Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, *1072 and AFFIRM the summary judgment that declared valid the inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the…”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). · cites it 24× “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

Bobby v. State of Alaska, 718 F. Supp. 764 (D. Alaska 1989). · cites it 32× “The main operative provision of chapter 52 is codified as AS 16.05.258 which, along with applicable statutory definitions, expressly limit subsistence hunting and fishing to rural areas of the state and those residing in rural areas.”

Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1999). · cites it 9× “24 To the extent that this court’s review requires it to deter-’ mine the meaning of the subsistence law, AS 16.05.258, this court exercises independent judgment.”

Manning v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 355 P.3d 530 (Alaska 2015). · cites it 11× “See AS 16.05.258. The fact that the Board previously determined the Nelchina caribou hunt had to be managed under Tier H does not affect the standard of review or analysis.”

State v. Kluti Kaah Native Vill. of Copper Ctr., 831 P.2d 1270 (Alaska 1992). · cites it 17× “[4] Because the Board failed to consider the historical duration of the Ahtna people's traditional and customary patterns of hunting moose in the relevant game management unit the superior court concluded that: *1276 [I]t is highly questionable whether the Board was `reasonably'…”

Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, 420 P.3d 1270 (Alaska 2018). · cites it 11× “4 See AS 16.05.258. 5 AS 16.05.258(b). Subsistence uses are the "noncommercial, customary and traditional uses of wild, renewable resources .”

Koyukuk River Basin Moose Co-Mgmt. Team v. Bd. of Game, 76 P.3d 383 (Alaska 2003). · cites it 8× “The superior court's thorough memorandum decision accurately described the me-chanies of game management under Alaska's subsistence statute, AS 16.05.258. The board must first identify game populations customarily and traditionally taken or used for subsistence-the so-called "C…”

Payton v. State, 938 P.2d 1036 (Alaska 1997). · cites it 13× “The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to the Paytons’ claims under AS 16.05.258 and its implementing regulations.”

Totemoff v. State, 905 P.2d 954 (Alaska 1995). · cites it 5× “is also not intended to limit a persons [sic] ability to challenge a regulation that is unreasonable in its terms or fails to provide a reasonable opportunity to satisfy subsistence uses as required in proposed AS 16.05.258(c). An example might be a hunting season on caribou…”

State v. Morry, 836 P.2d 358 (Alaska 1992). · cites it 9× “It insists that AS 16.05.258 requires the boards to first identify stocks and populations, then determine what portions can be harvested consistent with sustained yield.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(F) — 1 case

Manning v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 355 P.3d 530 (Alaska 2015). “See AS 16.05.258. The fact that the Board previously determined the Nelchina caribou hunt had to be managed under Tier H does not affect the standard of review or analysis.”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(a) — 8 cases

Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1999). “24 To the extent that this court’s review requires it to deter-’ mine the meaning of the subsistence law, AS 16.05.258, this court exercises independent judgment.”

Payton v. State, 938 P.2d 1036 (Alaska 1997). “The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment as to the Paytons’ claims under AS 16.05.258 and its implementing regulations.”

Koyukuk River Basin Moose Co-Mgmt. Team v. Bd. of Game, 76 P.3d 383 (Alaska 2003). “The superior court's thorough memorandum decision accurately described the me-chanies of game management under Alaska's subsistence statute, AS 16.05.258. The board must first identify game populations customarily and traditionally taken or used for subsistence-the so-called "C…”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State, 347 P.3d 97 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b) — 9 cases

Manning v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 355 P.3d 530 (Alaska 2015). “See AS 16.05.258. The fact that the Board previously determined the Nelchina caribou hunt had to be managed under Tier H does not affect the standard of review or analysis.”

Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, 420 P.3d 1270 (Alaska 2018). “4 See AS 16.05.258. 5 AS 16.05.258(b). Subsistence uses are the "noncommercial, customary and traditional uses of wild, renewable resources .”

State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Manning, 161 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2007). “AS 16.05.258. First, because we conclude that the game ratio is unconstitutional, that ratio cannot be sustained regardless of whether or not it is a valid exercise of the Board's authority.”

Koyukuk River Basin Moose Co-Mgmt. Team v. Bd. of Game, 76 P.3d 383 (Alaska 2003). “The superior court's thorough memorandum decision accurately described the me-chanies of game management under Alaska's subsistence statute, AS 16.05.258. The board must first identify game populations customarily and traditionally taken or used for subsistence-the so-called "C…”

Bobby v. State of Alaska, 718 F. Supp. 764 (D. Alaska 1989). “The main operative provision of chapter 52 is codified as AS 16.05.258 which, along with applicable statutory definitions, expressly limit subsistence hunting and fishing to rural areas of the state and those residing in rural areas.”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(1) — 4 cases

Koyukuk River Basin Moose Co-Mgmt. Team v. Bd. of Game, 76 P.3d 383 (Alaska 2003). “The superior court's thorough memorandum decision accurately described the me-chanies of game management under Alaska's subsistence statute, AS 16.05.258. The board must first identify game populations customarily and traditionally taken or used for subsistence-the so-called "C…”

Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State, 347 P.3d 97 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015).

Phillip v. State, 347 P.3d 128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015).

Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State (Alaska 2015).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(2) — 4 cases

Native Vill. of Elim v. State, 990 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1999). “24 To the extent that this court’s review requires it to deter-’ mine the meaning of the subsistence law, AS 16.05.258, this court exercises independent judgment.”

Bobby v. State of Alaska, 718 F. Supp. 764 (D. Alaska 1989). “The main operative provision of chapter 52 is codified as AS 16.05.258 which, along with applicable statutory definitions, expressly limit subsistence hunting and fishing to rural areas of the state and those residing in rural areas.”

Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State, 347 P.3d 97 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015).

Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State (Alaska 2015).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(2)(A) — 2 cases

Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State, 347 P.3d 97 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015).

Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State (Alaska 2015).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(3) — 1 case

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(4) — 5 cases

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

Manning v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 355 P.3d 530 (Alaska 2015). “See AS 16.05.258. The fact that the Board previously determined the Nelchina caribou hunt had to be managed under Tier H does not affect the standard of review or analysis.”

State v. Estrada, 315 P.3d 688 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013).

Kenneth H. Manning v. Alaska Dept. Of Fish & Game, & Ahtna Tene Nene' (Alaska 2018).

Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game (Alaska 2015).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(4)(B) — 3 cases

State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Manning, 161 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2007). “AS 16.05.258. First, because we conclude that the game ratio is unconstitutional, that ratio cannot be sustained regardless of whether or not it is a valid exercise of the Board's authority.”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

Phillip v. State, 347 P.3d 128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(4)(B)(i) — 1 case

State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Manning, 161 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2007). “AS 16.05.258. First, because we conclude that the game ratio is unconstitutional, that ratio cannot be sustained regardless of whether or not it is a valid exercise of the Board's authority.”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(4)(B)(ii) — 5 cases

State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Manning, 161 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2007). “AS 16.05.258. First, because we conclude that the game ratio is unconstitutional, that ratio cannot be sustained regardless of whether or not it is a valid exercise of the Board's authority.”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, 420 P.3d 1270 (Alaska 2018). “4 See AS 16.05.258. 5 AS 16.05.258(b). Subsistence uses are the "noncommercial, customary and traditional uses of wild, renewable resources .”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 83 P.3d 1060 (Alaska 2004). “CONCLUSION We consequently REVERSE the summary judgment that declared invalid the inclusion of Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, *1072 and AFFIRM the summary judgment that declared valid the inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the…”

Krohn v. State, Dep't of Fish & Game, 938 P.2d 1019 (Alaska 1997).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(b)(4)(B)(iii) — 1 case

State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Manning, 161 P.3d 1215 (Alaska 2007). “AS 16.05.258. First, because we conclude that the game ratio is unconstitutional, that ratio cannot be sustained regardless of whether or not it is a valid exercise of the Board's authority.”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(c) — 17 cases

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 83 P.3d 1060 (Alaska 2004). “CONCLUSION We consequently REVERSE the summary judgment that declared invalid the inclusion of Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, *1072 and AFFIRM the summary judgment that declared valid the inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the…”

State v. Kluti Kaah Native Vill. of Copper Ctr., 831 P.2d 1270 (Alaska 1992). “[4] Because the Board failed to consider the historical duration of the Ahtna people's traditional and customary patterns of hunting moose in the relevant game management unit the superior court concluded that: *1276 [I]t is highly questionable whether the Board was `reasonably'…”

McDowell v. State, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1989).

Manning v. State, Dept. of Fish & Game, 420 P.3d 1270 (Alaska 2018). “4 See AS 16.05.258. 5 AS 16.05.258(b). Subsistence uses are the "noncommercial, customary and traditional uses of wild, renewable resources .”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(c)(1) — 2 cases

State v. Kluti Kaah Native Vill. of Copper Ctr., 831 P.2d 1270 (Alaska 1992). “[4] Because the Board failed to consider the historical duration of the Ahtna people's traditional and customary patterns of hunting moose in the relevant game management unit the superior court concluded that: *1276 [I]t is highly questionable whether the Board was `reasonably'…”

Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska v. Alaska Fisheries Conservation All., 363 P.3d 105 (Alaska 2015).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(c)(10) — 1 case

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 83 P.3d 1060 (Alaska 2004). “CONCLUSION We consequently REVERSE the summary judgment that declared invalid the inclusion of Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, *1072 and AFFIRM the summary judgment that declared valid the inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the…”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(c)(l) — 2 cases

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 83 P.3d 1060 (Alaska 2004). “CONCLUSION We consequently REVERSE the summary judgment that declared invalid the inclusion of Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, *1072 and AFFIRM the summary judgment that declared valid the inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the…”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(c)(ll) — 1 case

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 83 P.3d 1060 (Alaska 2004). “CONCLUSION We consequently REVERSE the summary judgment that declared invalid the inclusion of Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, *1072 and AFFIRM the summary judgment that declared valid the inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the…”

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(e) — 4 cases

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 83 P.3d 1060 (Alaska 2004). “CONCLUSION We consequently REVERSE the summary judgment that declared invalid the inclusion of Knik, Eklutna, and Ninilchik in the Anchorage-MatSu-Kenai Nonsubsistence Area, *1072 and AFFIRM the summary judgment that declared valid the inclusion of the Kenai Peninsula in the…”

State v. Kenaitze Indian Tribe, 894 P.2d 632 (Alaska 1995). “” 13 The nonsubsistence provisions of the 1992 revisions to AS 16.05.258 expire on October I, 1995, and the 1986 version again becomes law.”

Phillip v. State, 347 P.3d 128 (Alaska Ct. App. 2015).

Morry v. State, 872 P.2d 1209 (Alaska 1994).

— Alaska Stat. § 16.05.258(f) — 6 cases

State v. Kluti Kaah Native Vill. of Copper Ctr., 831 P.2d 1270 (Alaska 1992). “[4] Because the Board failed to consider the historical duration of the Ahtna people's traditional and customary patterns of hunting moose in the relevant game management unit the superior court concluded that: *1276 [I]t is highly questionable whether the Board was `reasonably'…”

Bobby v. State of Alaska, 718 F. Supp. 764 (D. Alaska 1989). “The main operative provision of chapter 52 is codified as AS 16.05.258 which, along with applicable statutory definitions, expressly limit subsistence hunting and fishing to rural areas of the state and those residing in rural areas.”

Totemoff v. State, 905 P.2d 954 (Alaska 1995). “is also not intended to limit a persons [sic] ability to challenge a regulation that is unreasonable in its terms or fails to provide a reasonable opportunity to satisfy subsistence uses as required in proposed AS 16.05.258(c). An example might be a hunting season on caribou…”

State v. Morry, 836 P.2d 358 (Alaska 1992). “It insists that AS 16.05.258 requires the boards to first identify stocks and populations, then determine what portions can be harvested consistent with sustained yield.”

Kenneth H. Manning v. Alaska Dept. Of Fish & Game, & Ahtna Tene Nene' (Alaska 2018).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.

Alaska Statutes Home | Search Alaska | Find cases citing this section | syfert.com