or the commissioner. The Jerrels did not preserve their procedural due process issues at the agency stage. They first raised them in their reply brief in their superior court appeal. That is too late. They did not claim, at a time when the agency could do something about it, either that DNR gave them inadequate notice or that the hearing was deficient. I would not consider the due process issues to be so important as to establish plain error that could justify reviewing these unpreserved issues. In any event, the Jerrels received a full hearing before a hearing officer and had an opportunity to present evidence bearing on, among other things, what marks and brands might be sufficient. And they had ample opportunity following the hearing officer’s decision to fulfill 9, 1149 n. 24 (<HOLDING>); Northern Bus Co., 693 P.2d at 323 (concluding
holding that a regulation was not a prior restraint because it did not authorize suppression of speech in advance of its expression holding that agency decision calculating royalties was not regulation because it did not involve making of policy decisions and did riot make addition of substance holding that verbal requirement of need not contained in hunting regulation was addition of substance and thus regulation under apa holding that jeopardy did not attach when the judge dismissed indictment because case was not put to fact finder and court did not make determination of guilt holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions