Alaska Supreme Court upholds Valdez ordinance that limited fur trapping

The Alaska Supreme Court is seen connected Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, successful Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled successful favour of nan metropolis of Valdez successful a suit that challenged nan bounds of municipal authority wrong nan state.

In a unanimous determination issued Friday, nan tribunal upheld a municipal trapping ordinance that banned fur trapping successful definite parts of municipality successful bid to protect group and pets from traps.

That determination has broader effects. Many different municipalities, including Anchorage, person rules that limit trapping. A determination against Valdez could person affected those rules arsenic well.

The suit was brought by nan Alaska Trappers Association and nan National Trappers Association, which based on that Valdez’s regularisation was unconstitutional and illegal.

In written and oral arguments, nan groups claimed that authorities law granted authorities officials, not municipal ones, authority complete food and crippled issues, and that nan Legislature has delegated trapping authority to nan authorities Board of Game.

Valdez based on that nan metropolis has nan authority and work to protect nan wellness and information of its residents, that trappers did not reason nan ordinance erstwhile it was passed, and that nan authorities of Alaska itself publishes a trapping handbook that advises trappers to beryllium alert of section regulations, an denotation that nan city’s move is allowable.

Valdez Superior Court Judge Rachel Ahrens ruled successful favour of nan city, and nan trappers appealed to nan authorities Supreme Court successful 2021. The precocious tribunal heard oral arguments successful 2023.

Justice Susan Carney, penning connected behalf of nan court, said that a municipality tin beryllium forbidden from taking action if authorities rule expressly aliases implicitly forbids that action.

The trappers didn’t reason that authorities rule expressly prohibited nan trapping ordinance, which near nan justices to see whether nan authorities constitution — which requires nan authorities to negociate earthy resources for sustained output — aliases authorities rule contains an implicit ban.

The trappers based on that nan tribunal should see nan ordinance to beryllium a regularisation connected “natural assets management,” while Valdez based on that it should beryllium considered an rumor of nationalist information and onshore use.

That was a captious question, because nan Alaska Constitution says that municipalities “shall supply for planning, platting, and onshore usage regulation.”

When it came to trapping successful Valdez, “We admit that this is simply a adjacent case, requiring that we equilibrium 2 compelling law grounds — location norm municipalities’ wide powers and authorities authority complete earthy assets management,” Carney wrote.

Ultimately, however, nan grounds was weighted successful favour of Valdez, nan tribunal said.

“The ordinance does not straight negociate nan taking of furbearers. It does not create unfastened and closed seasons. It does not limit nan number, size, aliases activity of animals taken. It whitethorn person an incidental effect connected nan number of furbearers taken successful nan aforesaid measurement prohibiting nan discharge of a firearm wrong metropolis limits has an incidental effect connected hunting,” Carney wrote.

“Nothing successful nan statutory connection suggests that different authorities entities are prohibited from enacting ordinances that impact trapping,” nan determination said.