Spoklie v. DEPT. OF FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS

• Decision Date: 10 October 2002
• Docket Number: No. 02-462.,02-462.
• Citation: 2002 MT 228,311 Mont. 427,56 P.3d 349
• Parties: Robert SPOKLIE and Spoklie Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS, Defendants and Appellants, and Sportsmen for I-143, Montana Wildlife Federation, Defendant-Intervenors and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

56 P.3d 349

311 Mont. 427

2002 MT 228

Robert SPOKLIE and Spoklie Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS, Defendants and Appellants, and Sportsmen for I-143, Montana Wildlife Federation, Defendant-Intervenors and Appellants.

No. 02-462.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs September 26, 2002.

Decided October 10, 2002.

Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Chris D. Tweeten, Chief Civil Counsel, Helena, Montana (Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks), Jack R. Tuholske, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana (Montana Wildlife Federation), Elizabeth A. Brennan, Rossbach Brennan, P.C., Missoula, Montana (Montana Wildlife Federation), For Appellants.

Loren J. O'Toole II, O'Toole & O'Toole, Plentywood, Montana, For Respondents.

Justice TERRY N. TRIEWEILER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 The Plaintiffs, Robert Spoklie and Spoklie Enterprises, LLC, brought this action for a declaratory judgment against the Defendant, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, in the District Court for the Fifteenth Judicial District in Sheridan County, in an effort to enjoin FWP from enforcing its interpretation of Initiative 143's "fee shooting" provisions which are now found at § 87-4-414(2), MCA. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction which prohibits FWP from interfering with Spoklie's sales of alternative livestock (elk) to third persons, even if the third persons subsequently shoot the elk at Spoklie's facility. FWP and Defendant Intervenors Sportsmen for I-143 and Montana Wildlife Federation (hereinafter "Sportsmen"), moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The District Court denied that motion. FWP and Sportsmen appeal from the order denying the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. We reverse the order of the District Court.

¶ 2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court's preliminary injunction interferes with FWP's enforcement of § 87-4-414(2), MCA, and is therefore prohibited by § 27-19-103(4), MCA.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Plaintiff Robert Spoklie owns alternative livestock, including elk, located at Spoklie Elk Ranches in Sheridan County, and Spoklie Enterprises, LLC, in Flathead County. Spoklie is partial owner of both Spoklie Elk Ranches, which owns one alternative livestock license, and Spoklie Enterprises, which owns two licenses.

¶ 4 On November 7, 2000, voters passed I-143, which "prohibit[s] new game farms, prohibit[s] transfer of existing game farm licenses, and prohibit[s] shooting of game farm animals for a fee." The proponents of I-143 stated in the voter pamphlet that I-143 would "stop the unethical captive shooting of penned big game animals, also known as `canned hunts.'" In addition, the proponents stated that further regulation of the game farm industry was necessary to reduce the health risks game farm livestock pose to other wildlife. I-143 had a November 7, 2000, effective date.

¶ 5 FWP drafted new policies and procedures reflecting the I-143 "fee shooting" amendments, and on December 28, 2000, FWP sent a letter to all alternative livestock licensees informing them of the new policies. Enclosed with that letter were copies of a letter stating FWP's "policy decisions for the shooting and transfer issues," and a letter setting forth FWP's legal analysis in support of the new policy decisions. The "policy decisions" letter was a December 15, 2000, letter from Patrick Graham, Director of FWP, to Duane Douglas, Chairman of the Alternative Livestock Advisory Council. The letter stated that, with the I-143 amendments in effect:

Persons who acquire ownership in alternative livestock after November 7, 2000 are not permitted to dispatch their animals with a high-powered rifle, bow and arrow or crossbow. Only the licensee, principle [sic] manager or DVM (designated agent) is allowed to so dispatch alternative livestock that have had ownership transferred to persons other than an alternative livestock licensee after November 7, 2000.

The second letter was dated December 12, 2000, and was from Robert Lane, Chief Legal Counsel for FWP, to Pat Graham, Director of FWP. It set forth the following rationale:

The changes to 87-4-414(2) make it clear that a licensee is prohibited from permitting the shooting or harvesting of alternative livestock on a licensed facility when it is for a fee. It is the interpretation of the FWP legal unit that after the effective date of the initiative the electorate intended to remove from the list of lawful activities that a person other than the licensee could engage in on an alternative livestock facility, the right to shoot or harvest game or alternative livestock with a bow and arrow, cross-bow or high powered rifle for a fee. Because of the difficulty in being able to establish whether or not a particular shooting or harvesting was or was not for a fee the only practical means of enforcing the prohibition is to limit the shooting of animals on alternative livestock facilities to the license owner or principal manager. This is in keeping with the policy of the Department established prior to passage of I-143 that on an alternative livestock facility which was not licensed as a shooter facility that only the owner or principal manager was permitted to dispatch game or alternative livestock on that facility. The following scenario is provided to illustrate the scope of this interpretation. After the effective date of the initiative when a licensee sells an animal to a non-licensee whether or not there was any provision for `boarding' the animal, part of the purchase price is presumed to be the use of the facility to shoot the animal. The game farm licensee cannot then allow the new owner to shoot the animal without violating the law. Therefore, restricting the killing of alternative livestock to the licensee or principal manager is a reasonable means of preventing a possible violation of 87-4-414(2). In this way the rights of the new owner are not impacted since the new owner of the animal can use the licensee or principal manager to dispatch the animal for them if they so desire. The only thing the new alternative livestock owner is losing is the experience of shooting, for a fee, the alternative livestock which is exactly the activity that persons other than an alternative livestock licensee can no longer engage in as a result of the initiative.

¶ 6 Spoklies filed a complaint in the District Court on September 28, 2001, in which they requested a temporary restraining order (TRO), a preliminary injunction, a permanent injunction, and declaratory judgment that FWP's new policies were not enforceable. Spoklies did not challenge the constitutionality of I-143; rather, Spoklies claimed that FWP's policy decisions incorrectly interpreted the I-143 "fee shooting" and license transfer provisions. Spoklies alleged that FWP's erroneous interpretation of I-143 "prevents Plaintiffs from legally selling their livestock to a bona fide purchaser who may desire to dispatch his or her newly acquired property at Plaintiffs' ranches." Spoklies complaint, as amended, claimed that their business was compliant with the codification of I-143 at § 87-4-414(2), MCA, because they merely sold elk to third parties and that "[o]nce the new owner takes legal possession of the animal, he or she can choose to field slaughter the animal if he or she so desires at the ranches or arrange for the transport of the live animal off the premises," but that "once purchased, it is up to the buyer to arrange for the transportation of that animal from the ranch."

¶ 7 Spoklies further claimed that FWP's enforcement or threat to enforce its new policy would cause irreparable injury because they would lose at least 13 pending sales, estimated at $71,000; they would lose approximately 70% of the gross revenue from farming and ranching operations; and, they would default on their loans and lose their ranch properties.

¶ 8 The District Court granted a TRO on September 28, 2001, and sent notice to FWP. The TRO ordered FWP to "immediately cease, desist and restrain from initiating enforcement actions against Plaintiffs for selling their privately-owned alternative livestock to third parties who then seek to harvest their newly acquired property at Plaintiffs' facility and against the third parties who purchase the livestock...." On October 4, 2001, FWP moved to dissolve the TRO, and on October 5, 2001, FWP appeared at the show cause hearing and contended that § 27-19-103(4), MCA, prohibited enjoining enforcement of a statute for the public benefit.

¶ 9 On October 15, 2001, Sportsmen moved to intervene in the proceedings. Spoklies opposed that motion. On October 22, 2001, the District Court granted the preliminary injunction against FWP, continued the stay imposed by the TRO, and rejected FWP's motion to dissolve the TRO.

¶ 10 On November 8, 2001, Spoklies moved to amend its complaint and to certify the case as a class action. Spoklies later moved to request oral argument on this motion.

¶ 11 On November 27, 2001, the District Court denied Sportsmen's motion to intervene. We accepted supervisory control over the intervention issue, and permitted Sportsmen to intervene on February 19, 2002. That Opinion and Order is found at Sportsmen For I-143 v. Fifteenth Jud. County, 2002 MT 18, 308 Mont. 189, 40 P.3d 400.

¶ 12 On June 5, 2002, Sportsmen and FWP filed a joint motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, contending the injunction was wrongfully issued as a matter of law in violation of § 27-19-103(4), MCA.

¶ 13 On June 15, 2002, the District Court denied Spoklies' motion for oral argument for being untimely, granted Spoklies' motion for certifying a class action, and denied the joint motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that the injunction did not enjoin FWP's enforcement of § 87-4-414, MCA, but that FWP's policy was inconsistent with the language of § 87-4-414(2), MCA.

¶...