In Re: Snuffer
Annotate this Case
January 1995 Term
___________
No. 22479
___________
IN RE: PETITION OF CHESTER SNUFFER
FOR AN APPEAL OF A FINAL ORDER OF THE
DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES THAT REVOKES
HUNTING AND FISHING PRIVILEGES FOR FIVE YEARS
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County
Honorable John C. Ashworth, Judge
Civil Action No. 93-AD-375
REVERSED
_______________________________________________________
Submitted: January 17, 1995
Filed: March 24, 1995
William D. Stover
Beckley, West Virginia
Attorney for the Appellant
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.
Attorney General
David L. Lahr
Assistant Attorney General
Charleston, West Virginia
Attorney for the Appellee
JUDGE FOX delivered the Opinion of the Court.
JUSTICE BROTHERTON did not participate.
JUDGE FOX sitting by temporary assignment.
JUSTICE CLECKLEY concurs and reserves the right to file a
concurring opinion.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. West Virginia Code § 20-2-38 (1989), as it relates to
the refusal or revocation of hunting and fishing licenses or
permits by the Director of the West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources, shall be interpreted in accordance with its plain
meaning. The Director may, for cause, refuse to issue a hunting or
fishing license or revoke a license previously issued. The
determination of what constitutes "cause" to refuse or revoke a
license falls within the Director's discretion and is not limited
to the specific violations set forth in the West Virginia Code of
State Regulations. In the absence of abuse, the Director's
discretion in these matters is unfettered.
2. "'"'The primary object in construing a statute is to
ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature.' Syl.
Pt. 1, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm., 159 W.Va. 108,
219 S.E.2d 361 (1975)." Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. Fetters v. Hott,
173 W.Va. 502, 318 S.E.2d 446 (1984).' Syllabus point 2, Lee v.
West Virginia Teachers Retirement Board, 186 W.Va. 441, 413, S.E.2d
96 (1991)." Syllabus point 2, Francis O. Day Co. v. Director,
D.E.P., 191 W.Va. 134, 443 S.E.2d 602 (1994).
3. "'"Where the language of a statute is clear and
without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without
resorting to the rules of interpretation." Syl. pt. 2, State v.
Elder, 152 W.Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968).' Syllabus point 1, Courtney v. State Dept. of Health of West Virginia, 182 W.Va. 465,
388 S.E.2d 491 (1989)." Syllabus point 3, Francis O. Day Co. v.
Director, D.E.P., 191 W.Va. 134, 443 S.E.2d 602 (1994).
Fox, Justice:See footnote 1
In this case we consider a challenge to the validity of
West Virginia Code § 20-2-38 (1989), which grants the Director of
the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) the authority
to revoke, for cause, a hunting or fishing license previously
issued.
By letter of 1 March 1993, the appellant, J. Edward
Hamrick, III, then Director of the DNR, revoked for five years the
hunting and fishing privileges of the respondent, Chester C.
Snuffer. The respondent requested an administrative review of the
Director's order. An administrative hearing was conducted on 1
July 1993, and the hearing examiner denied the respondent's appeal,
holding the revocation proper and consistent with applicable law.
The respondent then petitioned the Circuit Court of Raleigh County,
West Virginia, for a judicial review of the hearing examiner's
decision under the provisions of W.Va. Code § 29A-5-4.See footnote 2 The circuit court heard the matter on 20 December 1993, and
subsequently reversed the Director's revocation of Mr. Snuffer's
license.
The Director's license revocation notice alleged that Mr.
Snuffer was guilty of "[a] history of repeated wildlife-related
violations . . . and a blatant disregard for state wildlife laws
for a number of years." The Director based this assessment on a
series of violations compiled by Mr. Snuffer during the period from
1977 through 1993.
On 21 November 1977, Mr. Snuffer pleaded guilty to the
charge of illegally transporting a pistol or revolver in a motor
vehicle.
On 13 January 1987, a jury convicted Mr. Snuffer of
spotlighting with a firearm. He was fined $100.00, plus costs and
jury fees, and sentenced to ten days in jail. Based on this conviction, the Director revoked Mr. Snuffer's hunting privileges
for two years, pursuant to W. Va. Code § 20-2-38.See footnote 3
On 24 October 1987, while his license was revoked, Mr.
Snuffer pleaded guilty to (1) illegally killing a deer out of
season; and (2) hunting without a license. Based on these
convictions, the Director, acting pursuant to West Virginia Code of
State Regulations § 58-49-3.2, extended Mr. Snuffer's license
revocation for an additional two years.
On 21 December 1990, Mr. Snuffer pleaded guilty to
brandishing a deadly weapon while hunting.
On 4 May 1992, Mr. Snuffer pleaded nolo contendere to
hunting by an illegal method, i.e., blind hunting over illegal bait
-- corn, in violation of W.Va. Code § 20-2-5(6) (1989).
On 11 February 1993, Mr. Snuffer was issued a citation
charging him with exceeding the creel limit -- trout, in violation
of W. Va. Code § 20-2-5b (1989). He appeared that day in
magistrate court and was assessed a fine and court costs, which he
ultimately paid.
As a result of the accumulation of violations, and
pursuant to W.Va. Code § 20-2-38, the Director sent Mr. Snuffer an
official notice of revocation on 1 March 1993. West Virginia Code
§ 20-2-38 (1989) provides, in part: "The director may, for cause,
refuse a license or permit to any person or revoke a license or
permit which had been granted . . . . All licenses and permits
authorized by this chapter to be granted shall be deemed to have
been granted by the director, and the power and authority to revoke
such licenses is vested in the director." (Emphasis added.)
This case is one of first impression, representing a
challenge by the respondent to the DNR's authority to revoke
hunting and fishing privileges under W.Va. Code § 20-2-38. The
circuit court found this authority to be "very open ended," and
ultimately held that it was limited to instances specifically
involving violations of the West Virginia Code of State Regulations
(CSR). The revocation of licenses is addressed in CSR § 58-49-3:
3.1 A license or licenses shall be revoked by
the Division for the following causes:
3.1.1. Negligent Shooting. Except as
provided in Section 5.1.1 of these
regulations, the hunting licenses of any
person convicted of negligent shooting under
the provisions of W.Va. Code § 20-2-57 shall
be revoked and license privileges shall be
suspended for a period of five (5) years. The
suspension period will begin on the date of
conviction.
3.1.2. Amassed Points. The hunting or
fishing licenses of any person who amasses ten
(10) or more points in any two-year period
shall be revoked and license privileges shall be suspended for a period of two (2) years.
. . .
Although W.Va. Code § 20-2-38 refers only to "cause" as
a basis for revocation, in this instance the circuit court
interpreted "cause" to mean "good cause." Further, the circuit
court held:
The words "good cause" as contained in the
statute are not defined with any specificity
and present a vague and overbroad discretion
in the Director.
The regulations promulgated and adopted
by the division may well be said to direct,
define and limit the application of "good
cause."
There is no indication that the
legislature in attempting to address the
recited mischiefs intended to provide the
Director with an open end opportunity to judge
in retrospect . . . .
In accordance with the above, the circuit court held the
five-year revocation of Chester Snuffer's hunting and fishing
privileges exceeded the statutory authority and jurisdiction of the
DNR under W.Va. Code § 20-2-38. Further, the lower court found
that the revocation was arbitrary and capricious or characterized
by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion. We disagree with both holdings.
West Virginia Code § 20-2-1 (1989) establishes the public
policy underlying the management of the wildlife resources of this
State, requiring their protection "for the use and enjoyment of all the citizens . . . ." Hunting and fishing privileges are
specifically listed as benefits under this policy. West Virginia
Code § 20-2-27 (1989) mandates the necessity of hunting and fishing
licenses, and W.Va. Code § 20-2-28 (1994 Cum. Supp.) through § 20-
2-63 (1989) set forth the necessary provisions and procedures
appertaining thereto.
Hunting and fishing privileges must be regulated in a
manner which comports with the public policy underlying the
management of wildlife resources. Realizing that licensing is an
invaluable regulatory tool, the legislature established hunting and
fishing licensing procedures which fall under the purview of the
Director of the DNR. By their very nature, outdoor activities such
as hunting and fishing are not easily supervised or regulated, so
the legislature granted the Director broad powers to administer the
licensing of these activities. Legislation which addresses all
possible reasons for refusing or revoking a license would be
impossible to draft. Thus, W.Va. Code § 20-2-38 states simply that
"[t]he director may, for cause, refuse a license or permit to any
person or revoke a license or permit which had been granted."
In syllabus point 2 of Francis O. Day Co. v. Director,
D.E.P., 191 W.Va. 134, 443 S.E.2d 602 (1994), this Court stated:
"'"The primary object in construing a
statute is to ascertain and give effect to the
intent of the legislature." Syl. Pt. 1, Smith
v. State Workmen's Compensation Comm., 159
W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).' Syl. Pt.
2, State ex rel. Fetters v. Hott, 173 W.Va. 502, 318 S.E.2d 446 (1984)." Syllabus point
2, Lee v. West Virginia Teachers Retirement
Board, 186 W.Va. 441, 413 S.E.2d 96 (1991).
Further, in syllabus point 3 of Day, the Court held:
"'Where the language of a statute is
clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning
is to be accepted without resorting to the
rules of interpretation.' Syl. pt. 2, State
v. Elder, 152 W.Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108
(1968)." Syllabus point 1, Courtney v. State
Dept. of Health of West Virginia, 182 W.Va.
465, 388 S.E.2d 491 (1989).
The legislative intent in enacting W.Va. Code § 20-2-38 is obvious,
and the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous.
We conclude that W.Va. Code § 20-2-38 is not an improper
grant of authority, nor does it vest overbroad discretion in the
Director.See footnote 4 Rather, this statute is a wise and warranted delegation
of authority, one that is necessary to deal with the Chester
Snuffers of this State who continually violate the laws enacted to
preserve our wildlife.
Accordingly, we hold that W.Va. Code § 20-2-38 (1989), as
it relates to the refusal or revocation of hunting and fishing
licenses or permits by the Director of the West Virginia Division
of Natural Resources, shall be interpreted in accordance with its
plain meaning. The Director may, for cause, refuse to issue a
hunting or fishing license or revoke a license previously issued.
The determination of what constitutes "cause" to refuse or revoke a license falls within the Director's discretion and is not limited
to the specific violations set forth in the West Virginia Code of
State Regulations. In the absence of abuse, the Director's
discretion in these matters is unfettered.
Having determined that the actions of the Director
comported with the statute, we must now determine whether his five-
year revocation of the respondent's hunting and fishing privileges
was arbitrary and capricious or characterized by an abuse of
discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
Hunting and fishing are recreational activities enjoyed
by thousands of West Virginians. People tend to start hunting and
fishing at an early age and continue to do so throughout their
lifetime. The overwhelming majority of people hunt and fish within
the constraints of the law and without ever being cited or charged
with a single game violation. Between November 1977 and December
1993, the respondent, Chester C. Snuffer, was charged with and
convicted of five game violations. In addition, he was convicted
during this same period of transporting a pistol or revolver
illegally in a motor vehicle and brandishing a deadly weapon while
hunting. Other charges of carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle
and illegally transporting a firearm were dismissed.
Clearly, the respondent has exhibited a blatant disregard
for the wildlife laws of this State. The Director has not only the discretion, but indeed the duty, to take appropriate action to
address these continued wrongdoings. A five-year suspension of the
respondent's hunting and fishing privileges seems quite
appropriate. Given the facts presented in this case, we find the
suspension is not arbitrary and capricious, nor is it characterized
by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of
discretion.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Raleigh
County is reversed.
Reversed.
Footnote: 1
Pursuant to an administrative order entered by this
Court on 18 November 1994, the Honorable Fred L. Fox, II, Judge of
the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, was assigned to sit as a member of
the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals commencing 1 January
1995 and continuing through 31 March 1995, because of the physical
incapacity of Justice W. T. Brotherton, Jr. On 14 February 1995 a
subsequent administrative order extended this assignment until
further order of said Court. Footnote: 2
West Virginia Code § 29A-5-4 (1993) states, in pertinent
part:
(a) Any party adversely affected by a
final order or decision in a contested case is
entitled to judicial review thereof under this
chapter, but nothing in this chapter shall be
deemed to prevent other means of review,
redress or relief provided by law.
(b) Proceedings for review shall be instituted by filing a petition, at the election of the petitioner, in either the circuit court of Kanawha county, West Virginia, . . . or in the circuit court of the county in which the petitioner or any one of the petitioners resides or does business . . . .Footnote: 3 On 20 February 1987, two additional charges of possessing a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle and illegally carrying a handgun were dismissed.Footnote: 4 Of course, such discretion is subject to judicial scrutiny under W.Va. Code § 29A-5-4 (1993).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.