gear license requirement in Alaska

2006See Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n v. Apokedak, 606 P.2d 1255, 1263-64 (Alaska 1980) (holding that the gear license requirement does not violate the federal Equal Protection Clause because it is "rationally related to the goal of preventing unjust discrimination in the allocation of entry permits"). 15 . 598 P.2d 77 (Alaska 1979). 16 . 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2). 17 .

1981This court’s latest pronouncement on the gear license requirement came in Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm’n v. Apokedak, 606 P.2d 1255 (Alaska 1980), which decided that (1) Isakson had not invalidated the gear license requirement in its entirety, only the 1973 cutoff date for the gear license requirement; and (2) the general gear license requirement did not violate the equal protection clauses of the Alaska or United States Constitutions. 6 .

2006See Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n v. Apokedak, 606 P.2d 1255, 1263-64 (Alaska 1980) (holding that the gear license requirement does not violate the federal Equal Protection Clause because it is "rationally related to the goal of preventing unjust discrimination in the allocation of entry permits"). 15 . 598 P.2d 77 (Alaska 1979). 16 . 20 AAC 05.630(b)(2). 17 .

1984It would be inconsistent to hold that the gear license requirement furthers the purpose of avoiding unjust discrimination with respect to Apokedak's constitutional claims while holding that the same statutory requirement cannot be literally interpreted because such an interpretation would work unjust discrimination. [4] *489 State v. Templeton, 598 P.2d 77 (Alaska 1979) is not authority to the contrary.

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980He appealed to the superior court a decision of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (hereinafter Commission) denying him a permit, contending that: (1) the refusal to accept his application was in violation of the mandate of Isakson v. Rickey, 550 P.2d 359 (Alaska 1976); (2) he was in fact a gear license holder within the meaning of AS 16.43.260 by virtue of his joint venture or partnership with a gear license holder, George Wilson, in 1970 and 1971; (3) the gear license requirement is unconstitutional as a violation of the equal protection clauses of the United States and Alaska Constit

1980He appealed to the superior court a decision of the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (hereinafter Commission) denying him a permit, contending that: (1) the refusal to accept his application was in violation of the mandate of Isakson v. Rickey, 550 P.2d 359 (Alaska 1976); (2) he was in fact a gear license holder within the meaning of AS 16.43.260 by virtue of his joint venture or partnership with a gear license holder, George Wilson, in 1970 and 1971; (3) the gear license requirement is unconstitutional as a violation of the equal protection clauses of the United States and Alaska Constit

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980We do not reach such an inference from that historical footnote. [14] See ch. 79, § 1, SLA 1973. [15] These nineteen "designated" fisheries are enumerated in 20 AAC 05.300-.310(a). [16] 20 AAC 05.510(a). [17] The court summed up the argument advanced by the plaintiffs in the trial court in this way: The plaintiffs argued ... that the cut-off date of January 1, 1973, which prevented them from submitting an application for a free commercial fishing entry permit, denied them equal protection of the laws. 550 P.2d at 361 (emphasis added). [18] See AS 16.43.260(d), set forth in note 13 supra. [19]

1980EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE ALASKA CONSTITUTION Article I, section 1, of the Alaska Constitution provides, in part, "that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights." In State v. Erickson, 574 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1978), we set forth a comprehensive approach to equal protection challenges under our state constitution.

1980EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE ALASKA CONSTITUTION Article I, section 1, of the Alaska Constitution provides, in part, “that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights.” In State v. Erickson, 574 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1978), we set forth a comprehensive approach to equal protection challenges under our state constitution.