496.162
Establishing seasons, amounts and manner of taking wildlife; rules. (1) After investigation of the
supply and condition of wildlife, the State Fish and Wildlife Commission, at
appropriate times each year, shall by rule:
(a) Prescribe the
times, places and manner in which wildlife may be taken by angling, hunting,
trapping or other method and the amounts of each of those wildlife species that
may be taken and possessed.
(b) Prescribe
such other restrictions or procedures regarding the angling, taking, hunting,
trapping or possessing of wildlife as the commission determines will carry out
the provisions of wildlife laws.
(2) In carrying
out the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the power of the
commission includes, but is not limited to:
(a) Prescribing
the amount of each wildlife species that may be taken and possessed in terms of
sex, size and other physical characteristics.
(b) Prescribing
such regular and special time periods and areas closed to the angling, taking,
hunting and trapping of any wildlife species when the commission determines
such action is necessary to protect the supply of such wildlife.
(c) Prescribing
regular and special time periods and areas open to the angling, taking, hunting
and trapping of any wildlife species, and establishing procedures for
regulating the number of persons eligible to participate in such angling,
taking, hunting or trapping, when the commission determines such action is
necessary to maintain properly the supply of wildlife, alleviate damage to
other resources, or to provide a safe and orderly recreational opportunity.
(3)
Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, except as provided in
ORS 498.146 or during those times and at those places prescribed by the
commission for the hunting of elk, the commission shall not prescribe
limitations on the times, places or amounts for the taking of predatory
animals. As used in this subsection, “predatory animal” has the meaning for
that term provided in ORS 610.002.
(4) In carrying
out the provisions of this section, before prescribing the numbers of deer and
elk to be taken, the commission shall consider:
(a) The supply
and condition of deer and elk herds;
(b) The
availability of forage for deer, elk and domestic livestock on public and
private range and forest lands;
(c) The
recreational opportunities derived from deer and elk populations; and
(d) The effects
of deer and elk herds on public and private range and forest lands. [1973 c.723
§14; 1975 c.791 §1; 1981 c.218 §1; 2003 c.656 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Bassett v. State Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 556 P.2d 1382 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 6× “Petitioner urges that since there is no showing in the record that respondent discharged its statutory obligation imposed by ORS 496.162(1)(a) [3] of investigating *1385 the supply and condition of wildlife prior to the promulgation of the rules, the rules are invalid.”
State v. Hogevoll, 228 P.3d 569 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 2× “8 ORS 496.162 sets forth the criteria for the State Fish and Wildlife Commission’s determination of the number of elk that may be “taken” annually — a number that translates into the number of tags that can be issued.”
Siletz Anglers Assn. v. ODFW, 336 Or. App. 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 16× “” In fulfilling its statutory duties, ORS 496.162 requires that ODFW conduct an investigation into the “sup- ply and condition of wildlife” and adopt rules for the taking of such wildlife, providing, in relevant part: “(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of…”
Siletz Anglers Assn. v. ODFW, 336 Or. App. 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 16× “” In fulfilling its statutory duties, ORS 496.162 requires that ODFW conduct an investigation into the “sup- ply and condition of wildlife” and adopt rules for the taking of such wildlife, providing, in relevant part: “(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of…”
State v. Dyson, 636 P.2d 961 (Or. 1981).
“On October 27, 1979, defendant was riding as a passenger in a pickup truck being driven by another person when the truck was stopped by two state police officers, who cited both defendant and, presumably, the driver for *29 “illegal possession of doe deer,” a Class A misdemeanor…”
State ex rel. Juv. Dep't v. Reeves, 988 P.2d 433 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Brothers were charged with having committed acts that, had they been adults, would constitute the crimes of failure to tag a deer, ORS 496.162, exceeding the bag limit on buck deer, ORS 498.”
Fund for Animals v. Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 765 P.2d 215 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“The Commission’s authority to adopt these rules comes from ORS 496.162(1), which provides, in pertinent part: “(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of wildlife, the commission, at appropriate times each year, shall by rule: “(a) Prescribe the times, places and…”
State v. Dyson, 629 P.2d 887 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“We have concluded that the charge is based on ORS 496.162 and ORS 496.992, concerning game violations.”
Marolla v. Dep't of Pub. Saf. Standards & Training, 263 P.3d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“, ORS 496.162(4) (outlining the factors that the State Fish and Wildlife Commission “shall consider” before setting the number of elk and deer to be taken in a hunting season); ORS 166.”
State v. Gorham, 854 P.2d 971 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“ORS 496.162; ORS 496.992. He contends that the court erred by denying his motion to dismiss on the ground that he was immune from prosecution.”
State v. Gorham, 859 P.2d 1201 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“ORS 496.162; ORS 496.992. We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.162(1) — 3 cases
Siletz Anglers Assn. v. ODFW, 336 Or. App. 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“” In fulfilling its statutory duties, ORS 496.162 requires that ODFW conduct an investigation into the “sup- ply and condition of wildlife” and adopt rules for the taking of such wildlife, providing, in relevant part: “(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of…”
Siletz Anglers Assn. v. ODFW, 336 Or. App. 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“” In fulfilling its statutory duties, ORS 496.162 requires that ODFW conduct an investigation into the “sup- ply and condition of wildlife” and adopt rules for the taking of such wildlife, providing, in relevant part: “(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of…”
Fund for Animals v. Oregon Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 765 P.2d 215 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“The Commission’s authority to adopt these rules comes from ORS 496.162(1), which provides, in pertinent part: “(1) After investigation of the supply and condition of wildlife, the commission, at appropriate times each year, shall by rule: “(a) Prescribe the times, places and…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.162(1)(a) — 1 case
Bassett v. State Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 556 P.2d 1382 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“Petitioner urges that since there is no showing in the record that respondent discharged its statutory obligation imposed by ORS 496.162(1)(a) [3] of investigating *1385 the supply and condition of wildlife prior to the promulgation of the rules, the rules are invalid.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.162(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Dyson, 636 P.2d 961 (Or. 1981).
“On October 27, 1979, defendant was riding as a passenger in a pickup truck being driven by another person when the truck was stopped by two state police officers, who cited both defendant and, presumably, the driver for *29 “illegal possession of doe deer,” a Class A misdemeanor…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.162(4) — 1 case
Marolla v. Dep't of Pub. Saf. Standards & Training, 263 P.3d 1034 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“, ORS 496.162(4) (outlining the factors that the State Fish and Wildlife Commission “shall consider” before setting the number of elk and deer to be taken in a hunting season); ORS 166.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.162(l)(a) — 1 case
Bassett v. State Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 556 P.2d 1382 (Or. Ct. App. 1976).
“Petitioner urges that since there is no showing in the record that respondent discharged its statutory obligation imposed by ORS 496.162(1)(a) [3] of investigating *1385 the supply and condition of wildlife prior to the promulgation of the rules, the rules are invalid.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.