State v. Wagner

Similarly to McCormack, the Court was permitted to sidestep answering whether the state’s authority to enforce hunting regulations against treaty hunters is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction because of the “conservation necessity standard” under the Bronson framework. “[I]f the tribe itself has enacted similar valid laws[,]” the state may enforce regulations against a treaty hunter. State v. Bronson, 122 Or App 493 (1993).

Defendant appealed two misdemeanor violations for wasting game meat. As a member of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, Defendant argued his conduct was in the exercise of treaty hunting and the trial court had no authority to enforce wildlife laws against him. See State v. McCormack, 321 Or App 551, 561-62 (2022). Acknowledging he failed to preserve the argument, the issue should be reviewed since it is one of subject matter jurisdiction. In response, the State argued the issue of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be considered because the defendant did not properly preserve the issue at trial. In the alternative, the State argued, even if subject matter jurisdiction is at issue, the state does have authority to enforce wildlife laws against the exercise of treating hunting when, “necessary for conservation.” State v. Bronson, 122 Or App 493, 496-97 (1993). The Court, similarly to McCormack, was permitted to sidestep answering whether the state’s authority to enforce hunting regulations against treaty hunters is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction because of the “conservation necessity standard” under the Bronson framework. “[I]f the tribe itself has enacted similar valid laws[,]” the state may enforce regulations against a treaty hunter. State v. Bronson, 122 Or App 493 (1993). The Court held that this standard was met because the Tribe and State prohibit the waste of game meat, and therefore possessed authority to enforce the state waste law against the treaty hunter. Affirmed.