266 [78 Op. Att’y

 Federal inspection and approval does not implythat a meat product 1

must be sold in Maryland. The Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts

state law only with regard to labeling and the regulation of premises,

(continued...)

NATURAL RESOURCES

SALE OF VENISON FROM FARM-RAISED DEER IS PROHIBITED

September 2, 1993

The Honorable Kevin Kelly

House of Delegates 

 You have requested our opinion whether §10-404 of the

Natural Resources Article, Maryland Code (“NR” Article), would

prohibit the sale of an imported “venison stick” in Maryland.

For the reasons stated below, we conclude that NR §10-404(c)

would prohibit the sale of this “venison stick” in Maryland.

Although we believe that this conclusion reflects the better

construction of the statute, the language used in NR §10-404(c) does

not convey the prohibition’s true scope. Thus, we urge enactment of

clarifying legislation, so that the statutory language accurately

reflects the actual legislative objective.

I

Imported “Venison Stick”

“Venison stick,” as described in your letter, is a processed meat

product containing venison and beef as well as other flavorings.

According to the food distribution company that wishes to sell the

venison stick, the product is imported from New Zealand, where

deer are raised on ranches for the purpose of the commercial sale of

venison. A copy of the packaging enclosed with your letter indicates

that the venison stick has been inspected and approved by the United

States Department of Agriculture. The packaging of the venison 1
Gen. 266] 267

 (...continued) 1

facilities, and operation of meat processing plants. Thus, states are free to

prohibit the sale of certain meats. See 21 U.S.C. §678.

 In addition, deer mounts, antlers and antler mounts, and deer hides 2

cannot be sold. See Memorandum of Advice from Assistant Attorney

General Pamela Andersen to Major Woodward Willing (August 13, 1987).

stick, as far as we can see, does not indicate whether the deer meat

contained in the venison stick comes from farm-raised deer. 

II

Current Statutory Text

NR §10-404(c) provides as follows:

A person may not sell, offer for sale,

purchase, offer to purchase, barter or

exchange, at any time within the State any

game bird or game mammal taken from the

wild except the meat, pelt or carcass of any

muskrat, raccoon, mink, otter, nutria,

opossum, beaver, fox, long-tail weasel, fisher,

or skunk, whether caught in this State, or in

another state, territory, or country.

A “game mammal” includes a “forest game mammal.” NR §10-

101(h). A “forest game mammal” includes, among other things,

“deer ....” NR §10-101(f). Because the term “forest game mammal”

also encompasses “any part” of the mammal, the meat of one of

these mammals cannot be sold.2

If we were considering solely the plain language of the statute,

we would conclude that the sale of products made from farm-raised

deer is not prohibited. The phrase “taken from the wild” is not

defined by the statute. “Wild” is broadly defined as “living in a

natural state; not domesticated, cultivated, or tamed.” American

Heritage Dictionary 1381 (2d college ed. 1982). Deer raised on a

farm or ranch for venison would not exist in “a natural state” since

“nature” generally refers to the woods or forest. Nor would deer

raised on farms and ranches be considered “not domesticated [or]
268 [78 Op. Att’y

 The Department of Natural Resources informs us that there is no 3

physical difference in the species between wild and farm-raised turkeys.

According to a 1992 Bill Analysis of House Bill 1379, which

4

would have permitted and regulated deer farming in Maryland, the United

States imports over one million pounds of venison annually from New

Zealand and 30,000 pounds from Canada. Also, more than 40 states allow

deer farming. It is reasonable to conclude that deer in the countries and

(continued...)

cultivated” if they were being raised like cattle, sheep, or similar

domesticated livestock. Thus, under the standard dictionary

definition of “wild,” farm-raised venison would not be “game

mammals taken from the wild.”

 Another way to describe “game mammals taken from the

wild” would be to refer to them as “wild mammals.” “Wild

mammals” is defined as “every mammal wild by nature, or any part,

egg, or offspring, or dead body of any of them.” NR §10-101(x). The

question then becomes whether deer raised on a farm or ranch for

venison would be considered “wild by nature.” Deer farming is not

widespread in the United States or abroad, nor are deer traditionally

considered livestock. Therefore, we believe that deer generally

would be considered “wild by nature.” However, in order to

determine whether farm-raised deer are considered “wild by nature,”

we must examine the application of the parallel term “game bird[s]

... taken from the wild.”

As used in NR §10-404(c), the term “game bird[s]” refers to

“forest game birds,” which is further defined as “ruffed grouse and

turkey.” NR §10-101(e) and (h). So, if the term “any game bird or

game mammal taken from the wild” were interpreted to include

farm-raised game birds, then the sale of almost all turkeys would be

prohibited. The Department of Natural Resources has never

interpreted the statute to include farm-raised turkey because the

result would, of course, be absurd. The Department suggests that

farm-raised turkeys are treated differently than farm-raised deer

under the statute because turkeys are not “wild by nature,” since they

have been raised and bred in captivity for many years. Applying the 3

Department’s reasoning to farm-raised deer, if these deer have been

raised and bred in captivity for years, as seems to be the case

regarding the deer from which “venison stick” is made, then they

would not be considered “wild by nature.” Accordingly, if we were 4
Gen. 266] 269

 (...continued) 4

states that permit deer farming have been raised and bred in captivity for

several years. 

to apply the words of the statute literally, farm-raised venison would

not be included within the term “game mammal[s] taken from the

wild,” and it could be sold in Maryland.

The text of a statute is the beginning point of statutory

construction, however, not necessarily the end. In construing a

statute, the Court of Appeals recently stated:

While the language of the statute is the

primary source for determining legislative

intent, the plain meaning rule is not absolute.

Rather, a statute is to be construed reasonably

with reference to the purpose, aim, or policies

of the legislature reflected in the statute.

Words in a statute must therefore, be read in a

way that advances the legislative policy

involved.

Maryland State Police v. McCready, 330 Md. 474, 483 (1993)

(citations omitted). Moreover, a longstanding administrative

construction of a statute by an agency charged with administering it

and legislative acquiescence in that interpretation “gives rise to the

presumption that the interpretation is correct.” Morris v. Prince

George’s County, 319 Md. 597, 613, 573 A.2d 1346 (1990) (quoting

Sinai Hospital v. Department of Employment, 309 Md. 28, 46, 522

A.2d 382, 391 (1987)). In this instance, the legislative policy

underlying NR §10-404(c) is best discerned by examination of prior

law, the legislative history of the relevant amendment – including,

in particular, the bill title – and the consistent administrative

construction given to NR §10-404(c). 
270 [78 Op. Att’y

 After the 1975 amendment former NR §10-404(c) provided as

5

follows:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) or

unless a person holds a game breeder’s license, he

may not sell, offer for sale, purchase, barter, or

exchange, at any time within the State any game

bird or mammal except the meat, pelt, or carcass

of any muskrat, raccoon, mink, otter, nutria, or

opossum, whether caught in this State or in

another state, territory, or country. However, a

person may purchase and keep live game birds

and mammals in captivity for propagation if he

first obtains a permit from the Secretary and pays

a $2 fee. This permit shall expire December 31 of

the issuing year.

(2) A person may purchase and sell pheasant,

quail, and mallard ducks raised in or out of State

by a game breeder. The seller and purchaser shall

maintain records indicating the origin of every

bird purchased or sold including the name and

address of the game breeder. The records are

subject to inspection by the Department at any

reasonable time.

III

Evolution of NR §10-404(c)

A. 1943 Enactment

Section 10-404(c) was originally enacted by Chapter 708 of the

Laws of Maryland 1943, codified in former Article 66C, §132(j).

This section provided that a person was prohibited from selling or

purchasing any game bird or animal unless the person held a valid

game breeder’s license. This section was recodified in the Natural

Resources Article as §10-404 in 1973. Chapter 4 of the Laws of

Maryland 1973. Until 1986, the only amendment was a provision

added in 1975 to permit a person to sell pheasant, quail, and mallard

ducks raised by a game breeder.5

Under the 1943 law, all venison or deer meat, either wild or

farm-raised, was prohibited from being sold in Maryland. See
Gen. 266] 271

Memorandum of Advice from Assistant Attorney General Ben

Bialek to Colonel Jack Taylor (July 6, 1979). 

B. 1986 Amendment

The crucial language was added by Chapter 805, Laws of

Maryland 1986, as part of a comprehensive bill the short title of

which was “Rabies Control and Captive Wildlife.” Chapter 805

inserted the phrase “taken from the wild” following “game birds and

mammals,” inserted “game” in front of “mammals,” removed the

licensing provision and the provision that allowed a game breeder to

sell game mammals, and repealed the 1975 amendment regarding

certain waterfowl.

Chapter 805 originated as House Bill 1601, which was

sponsored by the Chairman of the Environmental Matters Committee

on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources. The intent of

House Bill 1601 was to regulate the sale, distribution, and

possession in captivity of wild animals in the state. Senate Bill

Analysis of House Bill 1601. House Bill 1601 was the result of a

two-year study by a joint federal-state committee that examined the

problems attendant with the possession of live wildlife in captivity.

Memorandum from Donald MacLauchlan, Director of Forest, Parks

and Wildlife to Delegate Larry Young, Chairman, and Members of

the Environmental Matters Committee (March 12, 1986). The bill

repealed all existing statutes concerning captive wildlife in NR

Subtitle 9 and re-enacted these provisions with additional regulation

of captive wildlife. 

The Department of Natural Resources has suggested that the

intent behind the “taken from the wild” language was to clarify that

the sale of captive game animals raised and bred by licensed

breeders was to be governed by the new Subtitle 9 dealing

specifically with captive wildlife, rather than NR §10-404(c). This

interpretation is consistent with NR §10-905(d), also added by

Chapter 805, authorizing the Secretary of Natural Resources to

“prescribe, by rule or regulation, the conditions under which a

person may possess and sell game birds and mammals intended for

human consumption which have been purchased from a licensed

game breeder.” The sale of all other “game mammals,” including
272 [78 Op. Att’y

 Interestingly, the Department of Natural Resources never adopted 6

regulations that would have permitted and described the conditions under

which a person could sell captive game mammals for food. Consequently,

captive game mammals cannot be sold for human consumption.

farm-raised venison not sold by a licensed breeder, would still be

prohibited under NR §10-404(c). 

6

The bill’s title does not describe the amendment to NR §10-

404(c). Ordinarily, a significant change in the law, allowing the sale

of a product that had previously been prohibited, would be reflected

in the title. Indeed, had the General Assembly intended to effect

such a change in the law, the omission of any reference to it in the

title would at least have raised a question under Article III, §29 of

the Constitution. But the Attorney General’s bill review letter did

not discuss the issue at all, lending greater weight to our assessment

that the General Assembly did not intend to change the law

prohibiting the sale of all venison. See Bill Review Letter from

Attorney General Sachs to Governor Hughes (May 16, 1986). 

Moreover, the March 1986 memorandum from Donald

MacLauchlan described the amendment to NR §10-404(c) as “to

further clarify that it is the policy of the State to prevent people from

killing wild game birds or game mammals for sale of the meat with

the specific exceptions.” Memorandum at 2. This description

indicates that the Department of Natural Resources sought only to

clarify the section rather than to change the policy of prohibiting the

sale of farm-raised venison. Furthermore, neither the Bill Analysis

of the Senate Economic and Environmental Affairs Committee nor

the Research Analysis of the House Environmental Matters

Committee, both of which contain a lengthy description of the

legislation, mention the amendment to NR §10-404(c). Rather, both

analyses stress that the legislation would create more rather than less

regulation over the sale of “game mammals.” 

Finally, if the “taken from the wild” language were construed

to exclude farm-raised venison, no mechanism in the statute requires

a person to document that the venison was farm-raised. Thus,

investigators would have no way to distinguish between farm-raised

venison, which would be legal, and wild venison, which would be

prohibited, since it is impossible to tell the difference between the

two types of meat. Sellers of “wild” venison could simply claim that
Gen. 266] 273

 House Bill 1379 in 1992 would have authorized deer farming in 7

Maryland as well as exempted deer farming from the provision of NR

§10-404(c). Senate Bill 833 of 1993 would have authorized the

importation of farm-raised and officially inspected deer meat. Senate Bill

146 of 1993 would have authorized fallow deer farming in Maryland.

the meat was farm-raised. Had the General Assembly intended to

authorize trafficking in farm-raised venison as part of a

comprehensive bill that regulated “game mammals,” the General

Assembly would likely have provided for some type of regulation

over the vendors of the venison, so that the prohibition on the sale

of “wild” venison could still be enforced.

C. Administrative Construction

The Department of Natural Resources, the agency charged with

enforcing the statute, has consistently interpreted NR §10-404(c) to

prohibit the sale of farm-raised deer. Since the Department believes

that the intent of the “taken from the wild” language was only to

clarify that the sale of game mammals sold by licensed breeders was

to be governed by NR §10-905, the Department’s interpretation of

NR §10-404(c) did not change after Chapter 805 went into effect.

In fact, the Department introduced legislation in 1991 to allow

the sale of “game birds and game mammals” that have been legally

manufactured into an article of commerce in this state or another

country. House Bill 256. The bill would have required the

Department of Natural Resources to adopt regulations that

established a record-keeping procedure for the documentation of the

venison. The bill, however, was reported unfavorably by the House

Environmental Matters Committee.

Other bills introduced in the 1992 and 1993 legislative sessions

would have permitted the sale of domestically raised venison.7

Nevertheless, none of these bills was passed by the General

Assembly. The bill analyses for each of these bills, as well as

statements from the Departments of Natural Resources and

Agriculture, affirm that current law prohibits the sale of domestically

raised venison. See Bill Analysis for House Bill 1379 (1992) (under

current law, deer farming is prohibited in Maryland); Department of

Natural Resources Bill Report on HB 1379 (March 23, 1992)

(present law prohibits deer farming); Department of Agriculture Bill
274 [78 Op. Att’y

Report on HB 1379 (March 27, 1992) (Maryland farmers are

prohibited from raising game animals, and Maryland restaurants and

retailers are prohibited from selling venison); Bill Analysis for

Senate Bill 833 (1993) (Senate Bill 833 would authorize the

commercial sale of venison); Department of Natural Resources Bill

Report on SB 833 (February 19, 1993) (current law is interpreted to

prohibit the sale of processed, packaged venison imported to

Maryland).

 

Thus, both the context of the 1986 legislation as well as the

current interpretation of the statute indicate that the General

Assembly did not intend to allow the sale of farm-raised venison in

Maryland. 

IV

Conclusion

A half century ago, the General Assembly decided to bar the

sale of venison, whatever its source. In our opinion, the General

Assembly has not changed this policy decision, although language

added to the statute in 1986 confuses the issue. Hence, we conclude

that the sale of imported farm-raised venison is prohibited in

Maryland. We do recommend that the General Assembly correct the

statutory language so that it accurately reflects the legislative

objective. 

J. Joseph Curran, Jr.

Attorney General 

Jack Schwartz

Chief Counsel

 Opinions & Advice*

*Amanda Stakem Conn, a volunteer intern with the Opinions and 

Advice Division, contributed substantially to the preparation of this

opinion.