Hunting as a Right - Primary Authority

[KillBilly]

The primary authority for the principle that hunting is a privilege and not a right is in caselaw.  State v. Tice, 69 Wash. 403 (1912), is the main case.  It’s old, but still good law.  Below is a quote from the case:

"The decisions of the courts in this country so far as they have come to our notice are all in unison in holding that there is no private right in the citizen to take fish or game except as such right is either expressly or inferentially given by the state. In State v. Snowman, 94 Me. 99, 46 Atl. 815, 50 L. R. A. 554, 80 Am. St. Rep. 380, the court said: ‘The fish in the waters of the state, and the game in its forests, belong to the people of the state, in their sovereign capacity, who, through their representatives, the Legislature, have sole control thereof, and may permit or prohibit their taking.’ In Smith v. State, 155 Ind. 611, 58 N. E. 1044, 51 L. R. A. 404, the court said: ‘The individual has no natural right to take game, or to acquire property in it, and all the right he possesses or can possess in this respect is granted him by the state.’ In Ex parte Maier, 103 Cal. 476, 37 Pac. 402, 42 Am. St. Rep. 129, this view is expressed in equally strong language as follows: ‘The wild game within a state belongs to the people in their collective, sovereign capacity; it is not the subject of private ownership, except in so far as the people may elect to make it so; and they may, if they see fit, absolutely prohibit the taking of it, or any traffic or commerce in it, if deemed necessary for its protection or preservation, or the public good".

[huntrights]

State v. Tice, 69 Wash. 403 (1912)

http://books.google.com/books?id=9HJMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA403&lpg=PA403&dq=Washington+State+v.+Tice+1912&source=bl&ots=YTu4URKuic&sig=InFKHwCIon8sLm_lX7fSKogL8Xw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mIozUrruNoe9igLf94CwAQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Washington%20State%20v.%20Tice%201912&f=false

“The defendant, Charles Tice, was convicted in the superior court of the offense of fishing for and taking salmon from the waters of Willapa Harbor on August 10, 1911, during the closed season, in violation of the law relating to the taking of food fishes …”  He appealed to the Washington Supreme Court relying on a reversal of the judgment rendered against him upon his claim that the law he violated was unconstitutional: (Laws 1911, page 496) “It shall be unlawful to take or fish for salmon in the waters of Willapa Harbor or its tributaries from the 15th day of March to the 15th day of April, and the 1st day of August to the 1st day of September and from the 5th day of December to the 5th day of January in each year.”

It is important to understand that Charles Tice violated the wildlife management laws in place at that time.  If he didn’t like the fact that wildlife managers had established seasons and catch limits that he objected to, then he should have proceeded to petition his legislators and the WDFW to change the regulations.  He broke the law; he was definitely guilty. 

The point to be made here is that our wildlife must be managed by sound and unbiased science which includes seasons and bag/catch limits to ensure healthy wildlife populations persist for generations to come.  The pursuit of making hunting and fishing Constitutional Rights DOES NOT mean hunters and anglers would be able to hunt and fish whatever, wherever, and whenever they want to (i.e. the Charles Tice scenario).  It means the people of the state will have chosen to make hunting and fishing Constitutional Rights.  Other states that have done this typically state in the Constitutional verbiage that the hunting and fishing heritage is so important that it should be protected in the Constitution, but that those rights are still subject to laws enacted by the legislature and that the appropriate state wildlife management agency (i.e. WDFW) will continue to responsibly manage the state’s wildlife for the benefit of all.