Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 508.710 (2026)

Grounds for denial of permit

✓ current as of May 2026

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

508.710 Grounds for denial of permit. No permit shall be issued:

(1) Which may tend to deplete any natural run of anadromous fish or any population of resident game fish.

(2) Which may result in waste or deterioration of fish.

(3) If the proposed operation is to be located on the same stream or river or tributary thereof on which a state or federal fish culture facility is established or is planned to be established.

(4) If the proposed operation is not consistent with sound resource management and is not in close proximity to the ocean.

(5) If the State Fish and Wildlife Commission determines the applicant does not have the financial capability to successfully construct and operate the hatchery or may not properly conduct the operation authorized under the permit. [1971 c.203 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1980–2005 · leading case: Fed'n of Indep. Seafood Harvesters v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 632 P.2d 777 (Or. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fed'n of Indep. Seafood Harvesters v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 632 P.2d 777 (Or. 1981). · cites it 24× “The issue is whether the Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) is required to make findings that the tests set forth in ORS 508.710 1 will be complied with before issuing hatchery permits.”

WaterWatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources Comm'n, 112 P.3d 443 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “The court reasoned: “While the legislature did not wish to foreclose permits for salmon hatcheries which would not risk the kinds of harm listed in ORS 508.710, we *616 conclude that it did not contemplate the issuance of such permits on an experimental basis as a way to acquire…”

Fed'n of Indep. Seafood Harvesters v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 612 P.2d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 13× “Because our decision under ORS 508.710 is dispositive of the matter, we will not consider petitioner’s further claim that the goal was violated.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 508.710(1) — 2 cases

Fed'n of Indep. Seafood Harvesters v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 632 P.2d 777 (Or. 1981). “The issue is whether the Fish and Wildlife Commission (Commission) is required to make findings that the tests set forth in ORS 508.710 1 will be complied with before issuing hatchery permits.”

Fed'n of Indep. Seafood Harvesters v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 612 P.2d 765 (Or. Ct. App. 1980). “Because our decision under ORS 508.710 is dispositive of the matter, we will not consider petitioner’s further claim that the goal was violated.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 508.710(1)(4) — 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.