Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 506.036 (2026)

Jurisdiction of commission; duty to protect and propagate fish

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

506.036 Jurisdiction of commission; duty to protect and propagate fish. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) of this section and in ORS 506.045 and 506.050, the State Fish and Wildlife Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over all fish, shellfish, and all other animals living intertidally on the bottom, within the waters of this state. The commission has joint or other jurisdiction with any other state or government over all such fishes within the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries where such waters form the boundaries of this state.

(2) The commission has jurisdiction over those species of fish, shellfish and all other animals living intertidally on the bottom referred to in subsection (1) of this section transported into or landed in this state which have been taken in waters outside this state.

(3) The duty of protection, preservation, propagation, cultivation, development and promotion of all fishes under its jurisdiction is delegated to and imposed upon the commission.

(4) The commission has no regulatory authority or jurisdiction over the commercial cultivation of oysters in the waters of this state. However, nothing in this subsection is intended to affect the authority of the commission under ORS 509.140. [1965 c.570 §8; 1975 c.253 §20; 1981 c.638 §13; 1983 c.364 §3]

506.040 [1965 c.570 §9; 1969 c.411 §2; 1973 c.723 §120; repealed by 1975 c.253 §40]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 662 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 662 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “140 confers broad authority to the Commission to determine whether a substance harmful to fish may nonetheless be used in the waters.”

Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Or. 1969). “160) and the other concerned with protection and promotion of commercial fisheries (ORS 506.036). The regulations of these agencies, as well as their extensive progagation efforts, are designed not just to preserve the fish but to perpetuate and enhance the supply for their…”

State v. Bordeaux, 522 P.3d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “011(5) (defining “food fish” as any animal over which the State Fish and Wildlife Commission (SFWC) has jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 506.036); ORS 506.036(1) (establishing jurisdiction of SFWC over “shell- fish”); ORS 506.”

State v. Westside Fish Co., 608 P.2d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “Formerly OAR 635-35-040; authority for the rule rests on ORS 506.036, 506.119 and 506.129; penalties are provided by ORS 506.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 506.036(1) — 2 cases

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 662 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “140 confers broad authority to the Commission to determine whether a substance harmful to fish may nonetheless be used in the waters.”

State v. Bordeaux, 522 P.3d 900 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “011(5) (defining “food fish” as any animal over which the State Fish and Wildlife Commission (SFWC) has jurisdiction pursuant to ORS 506.036); ORS 506.036(1) (establishing jurisdiction of SFWC over “shell- fish”); ORS 506.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 506.036(2) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 506.036(3) — 1 case

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.