At common law, the title to and property in all species of wild game is declared to be vested in the sovereign, but a statute is required if the state wishes to retain title thereto after the game is killed and in possession of hunters[i].

In relation to wild game, it is the state and not the U.S. which is the sovereign power and the state owns the fish and other species of wild game in its sovereign capacity as the representative of and for the benefit of all people in common[ii].

It is recognized that animals ferae naturae are not objects of private ownership, but rather belong to the state.  The state, representing the people, has the authority to regulate or even prohibit the taking of animals ferae naturae if such action is deemed necessary for the public good[iii].

Thus, a citizen has no private right to take fish or game, except as such right is either expressly or inferentially given by the state[iv].  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.

Wild game and fish belong to the state and are subject to its power to regulate and control; an individual may acquire only such limited or qualified property interest therein as the state chooses to permit.

So long as constitutional limitations are not infringed, the legislature may impose such terms and conditions as it sees fit on the acquiring of ownership of these wild animals[v].

The preservation of such animals, birds, and fish as are adapted to consumption as food, or to any other similar useful purpose, is a matter of public interest, and it is within the police power of the state as the representative of the people to make such laws as will best preserve such game and secure its future beneficial use to the citizens of the state[vi].

When a person has a proper license, s/he is authorized to pursue, hunt, shoot and kill the game animal or animals authorized by the license held and to possess the dead bodies of game animals of the state which are so authorized by the regulation of the commission[vii].

A state may adopt any reasonable regulation not only as to time and manner in which such game may be taken and killed, but also may impose limitations upon the right of property in such game after it has been reduced to possession[viii].

Congress has expressly authorized the “regulated taking” of threatened species in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved[ix].  Also, regulating nonresident recreational hunters is a reasonable means of protecting a scarce natural resource[x].

[i] State v. Pollock, 42 S.D. 360 (S.D. 1919).

[ii] State v. Moses, 79 Wn.2d 104 (Wash. 1971).

[iii] Aikens v. Conservation Dep’t, 28 Mich. App. 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

[iv] State v. Tice, 69 Wash. 403 (Wash. 1912).

[v] State ex rel. Visser v. State Fish & Game Comm’n, 150 Mont. 525 (Mont. 1968).

[vi] People v. Clair, 221 N.Y. 108 (N.Y. 1917).

[vii] State ex rel. Visser v. State Fish & Game Comm’n, 150 Mont. 525 (Mont. 1968).

[viii] People v. Clair, 221 N.Y. 108 (N.Y. 1917).

[ix] Christy v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. Mont. 1988).

[x] United States v. Romano, 929 F. Supp. 502 (D. Mass. 1996).