Court Opinion

ID: 9628495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:22:16.077621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:06.577107
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(dissenting) — The majority, without analysis, asserts that the State has failed to meet its burden of proving the challenged regulation was a reasonable and necessary conservation measure. I disagree. Having reviewed the trial transcript, I believe the evidence offered by the State is sufficient to meet this test. For this reason, I dissent.
The State produced several witnesses whose testimony contradicts the majority's conclusion that the regulation in question was not a reasonable and necessary conservation *689measure. For example, Agent Roberts' testimony established that, without a closed season, a serious threat to the population of the elk herd would exist. In addition, the State presented the testimony of a biologist, Max Zahn, concerning the importance of a large number of female elk to conservation. His testimony also established that the population trend in the Skokomish unit had dropped sharply in 1968 and 1969, had begun to build up in 1974 and 1975 and then declined. He concluded the current trend for the herd was downward. He noted that this decline had resulted in the State banning the killing of cow elk for the 2 previous years.
This testimony substantiates the State's claim that the regulation in question was a reasonable and necessary conservation measure. The State having met its burden that the regulation is valid is thus entitled to enforce that regulation. I would thus affirm the defendant's convictions.
Reconsideration denied December 12, 1984.