Case Name: PEOPLE v. BURTT
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1980-09-15
Citations: 100 Mich. App. 122
Docket Number: Docket No. 45714
Parties: PEOPLE v BURTT
Judges: Before: Allen, P.J., and D. F. Walsh and G. R. McDonald, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 100
Pages: 122–130

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v BURTT
Docket No. 45714.
Submitted June 10, 1980, at Grand Rapids.
Decided September 15, 1980.
Barry D. Burtt was convicted of taking fish in the waters of the State of Michigan with a gill net in the District Court for Charlevoix County. The Charlevoix Circuit Court, Martin B. Breighner, J., affirmed the conviction. Defendant appeals, alleging his conduct did not fall within the statutorily proscribed activity. Held:
Defendant’s participation in an otherwise legal fishing expedition was limited solely to assistance in transferring the netted fish from a boat to a truck. As such, his conduct did not amount to a taking of the fish within the meaning of the statute.
Conviction reversed, and sentence vacated.
Allen, P.J., dissented. He would hold that the use of the gill net to transfer the fish from the boat to the truck constituted a continuing violation of the statute. He would affirm.
Opinion of the Court
1. Fish and Fisheries — Ferae Naturae — Property of State — Personal Property — Taking of Fish — Words and Phrases.
Fish are considered to be ferae naturae and property of the state until taken; "taking” denotes the exertion of such control over the fish that they can be said to come into a person’s possession.
2. Animals — Ferae Naturae — Property Rights.
A person cannot obtain an interest or property rights in any ferae naturae until it has been taken into his own keeping and has been subjected to his control.
References for Points in Headnotes
35 Am Jur 2d, Fish and Game §§ 1-5.
35 Am Jur 2d, Fish and Game § 2.
35 Am Jur 2d, Fish and Game §§ 2, 47, 49.
73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 145, 146.
35 Am Jur 2d, Fish and Game § 47.
35 Am Jur 2d, Fish and Game § 49.
3. Fish and Fisheries — Illegal Taking — Statutes.
Assisting in the transferring of legally-netted fish from a boat to a truck does not constitute a taking as proscribed by statute (MCL 302.1; MSA 13.1602).
Dissent by Allen, P.J.
4. Statutes — Statutory Construction — Legislative Intent.
The purpose of a court in construing a statute is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature, and where there is doubt or conflict, the spirit and purpose of the statute should prevail over the strict letter.
5. Fish and Fisheries — Sportsmen Fishing Law — Legislative Intent — Gill Nets — Statutes.
The primary purpose of the Legislature in enacting that portion of the Michigan Sportsmen Fishing Law dealing with the unlawfulness of Bshing devices was to ban the total, rather than partial use of gill nets (MCL 302.1; MSA 13.1602).
6. Fish and Fisheries — Sportsmen Fishing Law — Use of Gill Nets — Statutes.
Use of a gill net to transfer Bsh caught with a net from a boat to a truck constitutes a continuing violation of the Michigan Sportsmen Fishing Law prohibition against the use of such nets.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Frank G. Hoffman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Richard T. Askwith, for defendant.
Before: Allen, P.J., and D. F. Walsh and G. R. McDonald, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
D. F. Walsh, J.
Defendant appeals his jury conviction of the offense of taking fish in the waters of the State of Michigan with a gill net, MCL 302.1; MSA 13.1602.
On August 10, 1978, Michigan Conservation Officers observed defendant in the back of a pickup truck that was parked in the waters of Lake Michigan. A fishing boat, containing approximately 800 pounds of lake trout and whitefish entangled in gill nets, was parked alongside a truck. Both the boat and the nets belonged to Indian fishermen who were also present at the location. Defendant, a non-Indian, assisted the fishermen by pulling in the nets from the boat to the truck. The officers intervened and requested identification. Unlike the others, defendant did not produce a Bureau of Indian Affairs card. He was subsequently charged with violating MCL 302.1; MSA 13.1602.
In affirming the decision of the district court, the circuit judge stated that the instant offense involved a series of acts which included placing the net in the water, ensnaring the fish, removing the net and fish into a receptacle such as a boat, and then transferring the fish from the boat to some means of transporting the fish from the lake.
The issue on appeal is whether defendant's conduct fits within the statutorily proscribed activity, i.e., the taking of fish in state waters with a gill net. We hold that defendant's actions did not amount to a "taking" of fish and defendant's conviction must be reversed.
MCL 302.1; MSA 13.1602, provides that:
"A person shall not take, catch, or kill a fish in the waters of this state with a net
The term "taking" has been the subject of prior judicial interpretation with reference to this state's fishing laws because fish are considered to be ferae naturae and property of the state until "taken". Aikens v Dep't of Conservation, 387 Mich 495; 198 NW2d 304 (1972). In Lincoln v Davis, 53 Mich 375, 391; 19 NW 103 (1884), the Supreme Court likened taking to "capture", and according to Sterling v Jackson, 69 Mich 488, 541; 37 NW 845 (1888) (Campbell, J., dissenting), one cannot obtain an interest in any ferae naturae until it has been taken into one's own keeping. Similarly, in People v Collison, 85 Mich 105, 108; 48 NW 292 (1891), the Court stated that "no individual has any property right in [the fish] until they have been subjected to his control". Finally, in Beach v Hayner, 207 Mich 93, 96; 173 NW 487 (1919), taking was described as tantamount to reducing to actual possession.
Based on these definitions, the term "taking" denotes the exertion of such control over an object that the object can be said to have come into one's possession. Utilizing this meaning, we cannot regard defendant's conduct as a "taking" of fish. Defendant's participation in the Indians' legal fishing expedition was limited solely to assistance in transferring the netted fish from the boat to the truck. Defendant did not partake in any activity in the boat which resulted in netting the fish. The term "taking" refers to the capturing or reducing to actual possession that occurred when the fish were retrieved from the water and placed in the boat. The fish had already been "taken" in the state waters when defendant became involved in the activity near the shoreline. In our judgment, defendant's actions do not fall under the proscriptions of the statute.
In view of our disposition of this issue, we need not address the other arguments raised by defendant.
Defendant's conviction is reversed and his sentence is hereby vacated.
G. R. McDonald, J., concurred.