Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that the statutory definition of “wildlife” governs whether animals fall within Oregon’s wildlife laws, and that wild birds and wild mammals must be untamed or in a state of nature to qualify under that definition. Regardless of whether the privately held exotic deer at issue were “wildlife,” the court held that the Fish and Wildlife Commission had authority to regulate them as “game mammals.” The court affirmed the Court of Appeals, reversed the circuit court’s judgment sustaining the demurrer, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the term "wildlife" in Oregon's wildlife statutes includes privately owned, nonindigenous deer held in captivity.
- Whether the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has authority to regulate deer that are not "wildlife" because they are not living untamed and undomesticated in a state of nature.
- Whether the information was legally sufficient under federal constitutional law.
Holdings
- The term "wildlife" means what the legislature defined it to mean in ORS 496.004(19): fish, shellfish, wild birds, amphibians and reptiles, feral swine as defined by rule, and other wild mammals. Birds and mammals must be wild—living untamed and undomesticated in a state of nature—to qualify under that definition, while the statute does not impose that requirement on fish, shellfish, amphibians, or reptiles.
- The Fish and Wildlife Commission has authority to regulate deer even if particular deer are not "wildlife," because deer are expressly included in the statutory definition of "game mammals" and statutes such as ORS 497.228 authorize regulation of the propagation, care, inspection, transportation, sale, taking, and disposition of game mammals.
- The court declined to decide defendant's federal constitutional challenges to the sufficiency of the charging instrument because the lower courts had not addressed those issues and the record was not sufficiently developed.
Key quotations
“We are obliged to apply the legislature’s definition.” (621)
“Those changes do not suggest that the legislature intended ORS 497.228 to be an extension of business as usual under former ORS 497.770 (1971); indeed the opposite is true, and defendant is mistaken when he argues otherwise.” (624)
“The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.” (625)
Factual background
The State charged defendant with more than 50 misdemeanor violations involving the possession, sale, propagation, and hunting of privately held cervids under Oregon wildlife statutes and administrative rules. The charged animals primarily were fallow deer, Axis deer, and Sika deer, all nonindigenous species, and the alleged conduct occurred in 2000. Defendant argued that the captive, privately owned, nonindigenous deer were not wildlife and therefore fell outside the Commission's regulatory authority.
Procedural history
The circuit court sustained defendant's demurrer, concluding that the captive, privately owned, nonindigenous deer were not wildlife and that the Fish and Wildlife Commission therefore lacked authority to regulate them. The Court of Appeals reversed, agreeing that the deer did not qualify as wildlife under its interpretation but holding that the information did not establish whether the deer had been lawfully captured and privately held. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision for different reasons, reversed the circuit court's judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The judgment of the circuit court was reversed and the case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court did not decide the federal constitutional challenges to the sufficiency of the information.