Court Opinion

ID: 9585871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:04:34.915866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:15.936221
License: Public Domain

Weltner, Justice,
dissenting.
Maddox was convicted for the violation of a provision of the “Game and Fish Code,” OCGA § 27-1-1 et seq. (Code Ann. § 45-101), even though the fish which he sold belonged to him and were taken from a private pond located completely on his property, were unable to move about through free-flowing waters, and in no ordinary sense of the word could be considered as “wildlife.”
The Game and Fish Code, however, defines “wildlife” as follows: “ ‘Wildlife’ means any vertebrate or invertebrate animal life indigenous to this state or any species introduced or specified by the board and includes mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, crustaceans, and mollusks or any part thereof.” OCGA § 27-1-2 (77) (Code Ann. § 45-102).
Having drawn a definition which includes, perhaps, human beings, the Code goes on to declare, in one sentence, that all wildlife is the property of the State of Georgia. “The ownership of, jurisdiction over, and control of all wildlife, as defined in this title, are declared to be in the State of Georgia, in its sovereign capacity, to be controlled, regulated, and disposed of in accordance with this title.”
Thus it is seen that the basis for the prosecution of Maddox consists of two sentences — one declaring all animal life in Georgia to be “wildlife,” and the second declaring all such “wildlife” to be the property of the State.
The constitutional implications of such a declaration are *201astonishing, striking at the center of our system of the private ownership of property, and permitting expropriation by legislative fiat, without compensation. From this fiat pend manifold criminal provisions, e.g., OCGA § 27-1-28 (a) (Code Ann. § 45-202), making it a crime to “. . . take, possess, or transport any nongame species of wildlife----” Bearing in mind its all-inclusive definition of “wildlife,” this statute makes it a crime to transport a sick cat to the veterinarian; or to take a goldfish to school for “Show and Tell”; or to haul a blue-tick hound in a pickup truck.
While all of these considerations were not raised in this appeal, the scope of the term “wildlife” was. I cannot agree that Maddox was convicted lawfully.