## Facts

- Clark Zane Couch operated a private Oregon “game farm” where customers paid to hunt captive, nonindigenous deer kept in enclosures.
- The State charged Couch with multiple wildlife-law misdemeanors based on alleged unlawful possession, sale, and allowance of hunting of the captive deer, in violation of statutes and agency rules.
- Couch demurred to the charging instrument, arguing the captive, nonindigenous deer were not “wildlife” under Oregon statutes and therefore outside the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission’s authority.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the charges.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the deer were within the statutory definition of “wildlife.”
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to clarify the scope of statutory and Commission authority over such animals.

## Issues

1. Whether captive, nonindigenous deer kept on a private game farm are “wildlife” under Oregon’s wildlife statutes.
2. Whether the statutory definition of “wildlife” is limited by common-law concepts (e.g., *ferae naturae* and lack of lawful capture) such that captive animals are excluded.
3. Whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer that removed the charged conduct from the reach of the wildlife regulatory scheme.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court held that captive, nonindigenous deer on Couch’s game farm are “wildlife” within the meaning of Oregon’s statutory framework.
- The Court rejected a limitation that would exclude captive or nonindigenous animals based on common-law *ferae naturae* concepts where the statutory text did not impose that restriction.
- The Court concluded the wildlife statutes form a broad, integrated regulatory scheme that includes licensing and permitting provisions aimed in part at captive and imported wildlife.
- Disposition: affirmed the Court of Appeals; reversed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the charges; remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory text and structure control the definition of “wildlife”; courts should not add an extra-statutory requirement that wildlife be free-ranging, untamed, or never lawfully captured when the legislature did not impose that limit.
- Oregon’s wildlife statutes reflect broad state authority to regulate wildlife-related conduct (including possession and sale), implemented through Commission rules and licensing/permit regimes.
- Statutory provisions addressing propagation businesses and the release of domestically raised or imported wildlife indicate legislative intent to regulate risks posed by captive and introduced animals to existing wildlife populations.
- For purposes of wildlife regulation, captive game mammals (including deer) may fall within “other wild mammals” and thus be treated as “wildlife” subject to statutory controls.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court reinstated the prosecution by holding that captive, nonindigenous deer kept for paid hunting on a private game farm are “wildlife” under Oregon law, and that the state’s comprehensive wildlife statutes and Commission authority extend to their possession, sale, and hunting.


State v. Couch, 341 Or. 610, 147 P.3d 322 (Or. 2006)