## Facts

- J. Michael Haggren, a commercial drift gill-net fisherman, operated a drift net about 250 feet offshore from a shore fishery lease held by Frank Canady.
- While Haggren was fishing, Canady placed a set net in the water nearby and began to fish.
- Canady asked Haggren to pull his gear and move because of the risk of entanglement; Haggren refused.
- Before the dispute escalated, Haggren called an Alaska State Trooper dispatcher to ask whether the “first net in the water” had the right of way under the 600-foot separation rule between set nets and drift nets.
- After consulting Fish & Wildlife Patrol Officer Titus, the dispatcher told Haggren that the first net in the water had the right of way.
- The nets became entangled; Canady cut Haggren’s net and retained about 1,200 fish from Haggren’s net.
- At a bench trial, the court found that even though Haggren deployed first, he violated 5 AAC 21.335(a) by continuing to operate his drift net within 600 feet of Canady’s set net after Canady set his gear.

## Issues

1. Whether 5 AAC 21.335(a) incorporates a “first in time, first in right” rule allowing a drift-net fisherman who deploys first to remain within 600 feet of a subsequently placed set net.
2. Whether reliance on erroneous guidance from law enforcement (via a dispatcher and officer) excuses or negates liability for violating 5 AAC 21.335(a).
3. Whether a good-faith, reasonable mistake of law is a defense to a strict-liability fish and game regulatory offense.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that 5 AAC 21.335(a) creates an objective, strict 600-foot separation requirement: a drift gill net may not be operated within 600 feet of a set gill net.
- The court rejected extending a “first in time, first in right” principle from a different regulation governing spacing between two set nets.
- The court held that Haggren’s reliance on incorrect advice from law enforcement did not excuse a strict-liability violation.

## Legal Principles

- When a regulation expressly prohibits operating one type of gear within a stated distance of another, the duty to maintain separation rests on the operator identified in the prohibition (here, the drift-net operator).
- A “first in time, first in right” concept recognized in a distinct regulation will not be implied into different regulatory text addressing different gear and structured as a one-sided prohibition.
- For strict-liability fish and game offenses, liability turns on whether the prohibited condition occurred, not on the defendant’s knowledge, intent, or reasonable belief about the law.
- Absent explicit statutory authorization, a defendant’s reliance on informal or erroneous legal advice from law enforcement does not create a defense to a strict-liability regulatory offense.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Haggren’s strict-liability conviction because he operated a drift gill net within 600 feet of a set net in violation of 5 AAC 21.335(a), and neither temporal priority nor reliance on mistaken law-enforcement advice excused the violation.


Haggren v. State, 829 P.2d 842 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992)