## Facts

- The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife adopted an administrative rule requiring hunters to wear fluorescent orange while hunting, aimed at reducing hunting accidents.
- Ronald E. Armstrong and Melvin R. Armstrong filed a class-action declaratory-judgment suit against the State of Washington and the Department, arguing the rule exceeded the Department’s statutory authority.
- The Department’s enabling statutes authorized it to regulate wildlife and hunting and to adopt rules governing the “time, place, and manner of taking” game.
- The Armstrongs argued that “manner of taking” should be read narrowly to cover only the methods or devices used to kill game (such as weapon type or hunting technique), not hunter clothing or safety requirements.
- The Department responded that hunter-safety regulation was tied to its assigned responsibilities over hunting and that it had long administered safety-related requirements, including licensing and hunter-education rules.
- The trial court upheld the fluorescent-orange rule, concluding that the statutory scheme—read as a whole—gave the Department implied authority to issue reasonable hunter-safety regulations as part of managing recreational hunting.

## Issues

1. Whether the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife had implied statutory authority, under its power to regulate the “manner of taking” game and related duties, to require hunters to wear fluorescent orange as a safety measure.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals, Division Two, affirmed the judgment upholding the rule.
- The court held that the Department’s express powers and broader statutory responsibilities fairly implied authority to adopt reasonable hunter-safety regulations, including a fluorescent-orange clothing requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative agencies have not only powers expressly granted by statute, but also those necessarily or fairly implied in, or incident to, the powers and duties the legislature has assigned.
- Statutory terms are construed in context and in light of the overall statutory purpose; where competing constructions exist, courts favor the reading that best carries out legislative intent.
- Authority to regulate the “manner of taking” game may include regulating conditions under which hunting occurs, not solely the instrumentality or method of killing wildlife, when the additional conditions are reasonably connected to hunting regulation.
- Courts may give weight to an agency’s reasonable construction of statutes it administers, particularly where the agency’s interpretation is consistent with a longstanding regulatory practice that the legislature has left in place.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals upheld Washington’s hunter-orange regulation because the Department’s statutory authority to regulate hunting, including the “manner of taking” game, and its broad responsibilities concerning recreational hunting reasonably implied authority to impose safety requirements like fluorescent orange clothing, and the trial court’s decision sustaining the rule was affirmed.


Armstrong v. State, 958 P.2d 1010 (1998)