## Facts

- Private landowners owned wooded property on Fourth Lake in the Adirondacks whose value depended on its forested character, including poplar trees.
- By 1900, beavers in New York had been nearly eliminated; the Legislature responded by giving beavers complete protection and later prohibiting any person from molesting or disturbing beavers or their dams and habitats.
- The Legislature appropriated funds authorizing the Forest, Fish and Game Commission to purchase and release beavers to restock the Adirondacks.
- Acting under this authority, the Commission released beavers, including a group placed on Eagle Creek, an inlet of Fourth Lake.
- The beavers remained, multiplied, and damaged plaintiffs’ property by felling trees (including poplar) for food and building.
- Plaintiffs sought compensation in the Court of Claims, arguing (i) the statutory protections prevented effective self-help and were unconstitutional as applied to their property loss, and (ii) the State should be liable because it purchased and released the animals, akin to a private keeper of wild animals.
- The Court of Claims awarded damages and the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether statutes protecting beavers and authorizing their release were an unconstitutional exercise of police power as applied to landowners who suffered property damage and faced restrictions on interfering with beavers or their habitat.
2. Whether the State is liable in damages for property injury caused by protected beavers that the State purchased and released, under a strict-liability-by-analogy theory or based on state “ownership” of wildlife.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the claims.
- The beaver-protection and restocking measures were upheld as a valid exercise of the police power for conservation and public welfare.
- The State was not liable for damage caused by the beavers, including those purchased and released by state agents.
- Private-law strict liability principles applicable to individuals keeping wild animals in captivity did not apply to the State acting in a governmental capacity.
- Even assuming invalidity of the protective statute, that fact alone would not establish a compensable wrong by the State for purposes of these claims.

## Legal Principles

- Wild animals are held by the State in its sovereign capacity for the benefit of the public; in conserving wildlife, the State acts as trustee for the people.
- When the State protects or restocks wildlife as a governmental conservation function, it does not incur tort liability for incidental property damage caused by those animals.
- Doctrines imposing strict liability on private keepers of wild animals do not automatically extend to the State performing governmental functions.
- The existence (or even invalidity) of a statute restricting interference with wildlife does not, by itself, create state liability for resulting wildlife damage.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York’s beaver-protection and restocking program was a lawful conservation measure under the police power and that the State, acting as sovereign trustee of wildlife, owed no compensation to landowners for tree damage caused by protected beavers released pursuant to the program.


Barrett v. State, 220 N.Y. 423, 116 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1917)