Taking Wildlife in a Survival Situation

March 6, 2014

Question: If a person in California found himself in an emergency survival situation, and had to take California wildlife in an otherwise illegal manner in order to survive, do the various California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or other laws specifically describe an exemption for such exigent circumstances? (W.B.)

Answer: No, there are no provisions in the Fish and Game Code or Title 14 to allow for any illegal take of fish and wildlife resources under the circumstances you describe.

If you are in an emergency, unintentional survival situation, fish and game laws will be pretty far down the list of things to consider when contemplating your next action.

I was wrong on this one. I though for life reasons you could take.

I was wrong on this one. I though for life reasons you could take.

Actually you are right she is wrong. Necessity is a common-law defense.

I didn't read her reply as interpreting the legality of taking fish or game. I thought she was saying there is no mention in the rules regarding a survival situation.

Well, her response is technically correct, but it didn't answer the question.

Well, her response is technically correct, but it didn't answer the question.

I think her response answered the question as it relates to F&G laws but didn't go any further than that.  I'm sure they're just trying to CYA with the response. 

Their job is to interpret F&G laws not other laws that are not subject to their jurisdiction.  I'm sure the reason the DFW worded their response the way they did is they don't want poachers to go around killing things then using "survival situation" as an excuse.

But yeah, in a survival situation you should probably worry more about your life than whether you're going to get fined for taking an animal out of season or something. 

Question: If a person in California found himself in an emergency survival situation, and had to take California wildlife in an otherwise illegal manner in order to survive, do the various California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or other laws specifically describe an exemption for such exigent circumstances? (W.B.)

If you are in an emergency, unintentional survival situation, fish and game laws will be pretty far down the list of things to consider when contemplating your next action.

Yeah!
I get the official response though.
you don't want a bunch of whackos saying, "I lost my canteen of red bull so I had to kill this deer to survive"

For sure.

My issue with the answer being incomplete is it ignores the "or other laws" aspect. If I was her boss id be really happy with the answer she gave, for the fear of nitwits that decide to "live off the land" and use that as a justification in their minds to eat california condors or something. The necessity is very narrow. Like your plane crashed deep in the siskiyous and you trap a rabbit without a hunting license or take a summer steelhead in a closed stream or something.

The term is impossible to define. Necessity. If you have a rifle, you could sell the rifle to buy food. If you have a 2012 Tacoma, pretty hard to justify. The burden of proof will fall back on you to prove that you had no other means to sustain yourself or family. I am pretty sure that it has been tried, and there may have been consideration given in the fine for financial hardship, but again, that is your burden to prove, and you better have some serious documentation to back it up, unless you are a homeless person, or surviving a plane wreck in the Forks of Salmon region.

I don't think it was in reference to "I just lost my job, going to break the law to feed the family" but rather "im lost in the woods & need to survive" type of scenario.  Just my take on it.

I don't think it was in reference to "I just lost my job, going to break the law to feed the family" but rather "im lost in the woods & need to survive" type of scenario.  Just my take on it.

Right. If it takes more than fifteen seconds to explain why, it's just rationalizing.

I also very seriously doubt any type of ticket or prosecution would ever follow a legitimate survival situation where someone lost/injured no access to any form of assistance and starving takes game unlawfully. A rural prosecutor would probably face a recall. The notion of trying to convict someone in that scenario is just repugnant.

This is for the family trapped in the woods in deep snow, plane crash, hopelessly lost and starving scenario. If you aren't in that situation, breaking the law isn't necessary. 

If survival meant I'd have to eat an omelette made from California condor eggs, let my family know of my dignified (but hungry) demise.

If survival meant I'd have to eat an omelette made from California condor eggs, let my family know of my dignified (but hungry) demise.

Stink bugs too? 

If survival meant I'd have to eat an omelette made from California condor eggs, let my family know of my dignified (but hungry) demise.

That would be hazardous because of all the lead found in them.....