Does the 1987 local act regulating deer hunting (including hunting with dogs) in Anson County override the general state statute G.S. 113-291.5 and the Wildlife Resources Commission rules that ban running deer with dogs west of N.C. Highway 742? And can the WRC make rules on game lands that contradict that state or local law?

Plain-English summary

The Wildlife Resources Commission was asked to advise on a long-running tension between a general state wildlife statute, the WRC's own rules, and a 1987 local act for Anson County. The AG addressed two questions.

Question 1: which controls in Anson County?

The general statute, G.S. 113-291.5, restricts the use of dogs for taking wildlife in the area "in and west of" a list of counties or parts of counties (including the part of Anson County lying west of N.C. Highway 742). WRC implementing rules at 15A NCAC 10B .0109 prohibit using dogs to run or chase deer or to attempt to take deer west of N.C. 742 in Anson County. 15A NCAC 10D .0003(e)(3)(C) allows dogs on certain game lands open to deer hunting in or west of named counties (with exceptions).

In 1987, the General Assembly enacted Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231, a local act for Anson County. Section 3 of the act provides that the firearms deer season in Anson County lasts seven weeks, and during that season deer may be hunted with dogs only during the last five weeks, subject to the restrictions of G.S. 113-291.5(b) and rules issued pursuant to it. The act expressly says it operates "notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 113-291.2 and regulations issued pursuant thereto."

The 1993 AG concluded that the local act overrides any conflicting provision of G.S. 113-291.5 and the WRC's deer-with-dogs rules within Anson County. Three reasons:

• The local act was enacted later than G.S. 113-291.5 (1979).
• The local act expressly references G.S. 113-291.5.
• The local act is more specific (one county, one season, defined dog-hunting window) than the general statute.

Shaw v. Baxley, 270 N.C. 740 (1967), supports reading two statutes addressing the same subject in pari materia and reconciling them. National Food Stores v. ABC Board, 268 N.C. 624 (1966), supports the specific-controls-over-general canon, especially where the specific statute is later.

The G.S. 113-133.1 wrinkle. The general statute G.S. 113-133.1 limits local regulation of wildlife resources. Subsection (a) preserves local legislation exercising valid powers over non-wildlife subjects even with incidental wildlife impact. Subsection (b) references "special, local, and private acts and ordinances" enacted before ratification. Subsection (c) covers preexisting and prospective city/county ordinances. Subsection (f) directs the WRC to review local acts that conflict with the State's wildlife framework.

A 1982 AG opinion had relied on these provisions to conclude that a county may not adopt an ordinance regulating wildlife trapping methods. The reasoning: the General Assembly preempted wildlife conservation and management, leaving only local acts exercising valid non-wildlife powers with incidental wildlife effects.

If Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 were challenged as something other than a valid exercise of non-wildlife powers (and it does, on its face, regulate the manner of taking wildlife), it might be argued that it falls outside the G.S. 113-133.1 carve-out. The 1993 AG acknowledged this risk but distinguished the 1982 opinion: the 1982 opinion addressed county ordinances, while Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 is a legislative act.

The Legislature can enact local acts regulating wildlife. Adams v. North Carolina Dep't of Natural & Economic Resources, 295 N.C. 683 (1978), establishes that the Legislature may delegate but not abdicate its wildlife-regulation power. Several subsections of G.S. 113-133.1 are written in terms of "city or county ordinances" rather than "local acts," supporting the reading that the general restriction targets local ordinances rather than General Assembly enactments. Subsection (f) of G.S. 113-133.1 directs the WRC merely to "review" local acts that fall outside the framework, not to invalidate them.

So Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 should be enforced in Anson County notwithstanding G.S. 113-291.5 and WRC administrative rules.

Question 2: can the WRC override the local act on game lands?

No. The WRC has broad authority under G.S. 113-264 to license, regulate, prohibit, or restrict public use of its property, including game lands. But this broad grant does not allow the WRC to promulgate rules conflicting with a local act of the Legislature. An administrative agency cannot adopt rules contrary to statute. Adams (cited above); States' Rights Democratic Party v. State Bd. of Elections, 229 N.C. 179 (1948). An agency cannot amend or repeal a statute by rule. Ramsey v. North Carolina Veterans Comm'n, 261 N.C. 645 (1964).

WRC game-lands rules that conflict with Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 are invalid to the extent of the conflict. The WRC retains its general game-lands authority everywhere the local act does not displace it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. North Carolina's wildlife regulation framework has continued to evolve, and the Wildlife Resources Commission's rule architecture (in 15A NCAC) has been substantially restructured. The Anson County local act may have been amended, repealed, or superseded. Anyone advising on current deer-with-dogs regulation in Anson County or anywhere else should consult current Chapter 113, current WRC rules, and any current local acts.

Historical context: what the AG concluded

The opinion reflects a long-running North Carolina cultural and political negotiation over deer hunting with dogs. Eastern North Carolina has a deeply rooted tradition of hunting deer with packs of trained dogs. Central and western North Carolina, with smaller and more fragmented tracts, has shifted over the decades toward still-hunting and stand-hunting. G.S. 113-291.5 codified that geographic split by restricting the use of dogs west of a specific line.

Anson County straddles the line: the eastern part of the county was inside the dog-hunting zone, the western part outside. The 1987 local act carved out a county-wide rule that authorized dogs for the last five weeks of a seven-week firearms season, subject to the general G.S. 113-291.5(b) restrictions. The local act balanced the state's general wildlife management approach with local hunting tradition.

The 1993 AG's analysis is a careful application of standard statutory-construction canons. Later, specific, and expressly cross-referencing legislation displaces earlier general legislation in the area of conflict. The narrower local act controls in Anson County. Outside Anson County, G.S. 113-291.5 and the WRC's rules continue to operate.

The harder question is the G.S. 113-133.1 framework, which the 1982 AG opinion had read as locking out local wildlife regulation. The 1993 AG resolved that tension by drawing the local-act-versus-local-ordinance distinction. Local ordinances (passed by county or city governing boards) are constrained by G.S. 113-133.1. Local acts (passed by the General Assembly) are themselves expressions of the legislative power that the Constitution gives the General Assembly. The Legislature cannot use G.S. 113-133.1 to bind its own future enactments; that would be a self-restraining statute that any later session could rewrite. The 1987 local act, as a later legislative enactment, simply has the force of statute in Anson County.

The WRC game-lands authority is broad but bounded by the same principle. The WRC is the General Assembly's delegate; it cannot rewrite its delegator's enactments by rule. Adams and States' Rights are the standard authorities for that limit.

For WRC enforcement officers in 1993 the operational implication was a county-line rule. Inside Anson County, enforce Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 (with the five-week dog-hunting window). Outside Anson County, enforce G.S. 113-291.5 and the WRC rules as written.

Common questions

What does G.S. 113-291.5 do?

It divides North Carolina into two regions for purposes of using dogs to take wildlife. In named central and western counties (including the part of Anson County west of N.C. Highway 742), the WRC can regulate dog use. In eastern counties, the WRC generally cannot restrict dog use except during the spring breeding and raising window.

Why does Anson County have a special rule?

In 1987 the General Assembly enacted Sess. Laws ch. 231, a local act setting a county-wide seven-week firearms deer season with dogs allowed for the last five weeks. The local act expressly cross-references G.S. 113-291.5 and operates notwithstanding the related general statute G.S. 113-291.2.

Can a county pass its own ordinance regulating deer hunting?

Generally no. G.S. 113-133.1 preempts local wildlife regulation, leaving counties only the authority to legislate on safety, health, and welfare with incidental wildlife effects. A county hunting-method ordinance would be vulnerable.

Can the General Assembly enact local acts on wildlife?

Yes. The General Assembly's wildlife-regulation power is constitutional and cannot be self-limited by G.S. 113-133.1. Adams v. NC DNER, 295 N.C. 683 (1978), confirms the General Assembly's authority.

Can the WRC make rules on game lands that conflict with a local act?

No. The WRC has broad rulemaking under G.S. 113-264 but cannot conflict with statute. States' Rights Democratic Party and Ramsey establish that administrative agencies cannot rewrite legislative enactments by rule.

Did the 1982 AG opinion about trapping methods bind this analysis?

No. The 1982 opinion addressed a county ordinance. The 1993 question is about a General Assembly local act. The constitutional and statutory analysis differs.

Background and statutory framework

The general statute. G.S. 113-291.5 (regulating use of dogs for taking wildlife by region). Subsections (a)-(f) define the regional split and exceptions.

The local act. Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 (Anson County hunting and deer season). Section 3 (seven-week firearms season; dogs allowed in last five weeks, subject to G.S. 113-291.5(b)).

The local-regulation limit. G.S. 113-133.1 (local legislation and ordinances on wildlife; preserving non-wildlife local powers with incidental impact).

The wildlife-resources-public-trust statement. G.S. 113-131(a) ("marine and estuarine and wildlife resources of the State belong to the people of the State as a whole").

The WRC game-lands authority. G.S. 113-264, G.S. 113-264(a) (broad authority over WRC property).

Implementing rules. 15A NCAC 10B .0109 (prohibiting use of dogs to run or take deer west of N.C. 742 in Anson County and elsewhere). 15A NCAC 10D .0003(e)(3)(C) (dog use on game lands).

Construction canons. Shaw v. Baxley, 270 N.C. 740 (1967) (in pari materia). National Food Stores v. ABC Board, 268 N.C. 624 (1966) (specific later statute controls). Adams v. NC DNER, 295 N.C. 683 (1978) (delegation versus abdication of legislative power). States' Rights Democratic Party v. State Bd. of Elections, 229 N.C. 179 (1948) (no rule contrary to statute). Ramsey v. NC Veterans Comm'n, 261 N.C. 645 (1964) (no rule that amends or repeals a statute).

Citations

• G.S. 113-131(a)
• G.S. 113-133.1, G.S. 113-133.1(a), (b), (c), (f)
• G.S. 113-264, G.S. 113-264(a)
• G.S. 113-291.2, G.S. 113-291.4
• G.S. 113-291.5, G.S. 113-291.5(a)-(f)
• Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231, § 3
• 15A NCAC 10B .0109, 15A NCAC 10D .0003(e)(3)(C)
• Shaw v. Baxley, 270 N.C. 740, 155 S.E.2d 266 (1967)
• National Food Stores v. North Carolina Bd. of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E.2d 582 (1966)
• Adams v. North Carolina Dep't of Natural & Economic Resources, 295 N.C. 683, 249 S.E.2d 402 (1978)
• States' Rights Democratic Party v. State Bd. of Elections, 229 N.C. 179, 49 S.E.2d 379 (1948)
• Ramsey v. North Carolina Veterans Comm'n, 261 N.C. 645, 135 S.E.2d 659 (1964)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/deer-hunting-with-dogs/

Original opinion text

1. Does the local law control deer hunting with dogs in Anson County and override the State law and WRC rules?

G.S. 113-291.5 was enacted in 1979 and states:

(a) Except as provided in G.S. 113-291.4, in the area described below, the Wildlife Resources Commission may regulate the use of dogs taking wildlife with respect to seasons, times, and places of use. The area covered by this subsection is that part of the State in and west of the following counties or parts of counties: Rockingham; Guilford; that part of Alamance and Orange lying south of Interstate Highway 85; Chatham; that part of Wake lying south of N.C. Highway 98; Lee; Randolph; Montgomery; Stanly; Union; and that part of Anson lying west of N.C. Highway 742.

(b) In the area of the State lying east of that described in subsection (a), the Wildlife Resources Commission may not restrict or prohibit the use of dogs in hunting or the training of dogs, in season or out, except during the breeding and raising seasons for game during the period April 15 through June 15.

(c) On game lands, wildlife refuges, and public hunting grounds the Wildlife Resources Commission may regulate the possession and use of dogs and may impound dogs found running at large without supervision or, if unsupervised, without means of identification.

(d) The Wildlife Resources Commission may not by its rules anywhere in the State restrict the number of dogs used in hunting or require that any particular breed of dog be used in hunting.

(e) It is unlawful to allow dogs not under the control of the owner or the individual in possession of the dogs to run or chase deer during the closed deer season.

(f) Nothing in this section is intended to require the leashing or confining of pet dogs.

Pursuant to this statute, WRC has promulgated rules regulating the use of dogs. 15A NCAC 10B .0109 prohibits the use of dogs to run or chase deer or to attempt to take deer west of NC 742 in Anson County (as well as in the other areas described in G.S. 113-291.5(a)). 15A NCAC 10D .0003(e)(3)(C) allows dogs to be used in hunting game birds on game lands open to deer hunting and located in or west of the counties of Rockingham, Guilford, Randolph, Montgomery and Anson, during the regular season for hunting deer with guns (with the exception of a few counties).

In 1987, the legislature enacted "AN ACT TO PROHIBIT HUNTING IN ANSON COUNTY WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER, TO REGULATE DEER HUNTING SEASON IN ANSON COUNTY, TO PROHIBIT HUNTING FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF A PUBLIC ROAD, AND TO REQUIRE OWNER IDENTIFICATION ON DOGS USED TO HUNT DEER IN ANSON COUNTY," Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231. Section 3, in pertinent part, provides as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 113-291.2 and regulations issued pursuant thereto, the season for hunting deer with firearms in Anson County shall last seven weeks. During the season for hunting deer with firearms in Anson County, deer may be hunted with the aid of dogs only during the last five weeks of the season, subject to the restrictions of G.S. 113-291.5(b) and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 is a proper exercise of legislation authority and overrides any conflicting provisions of G.S. 113-291.5. Where two statutes address the same subject they must be read in pari materia and reconciled if possible to give effect to each. Shaw v. Baxley, 270 N.C. 740, 155 S.E.2d 266 (1967). Likewise, where one statute generally addresses a subject while another statute specifically addresses the same subject, the specific statute will be controlling, unless it is apparent that the Legislature intended the general statute to be controlling; especially where the specific statute was enacted later. National Food Stores v. North Carolina Bd. of Alcoholic Control, 268 N.C. 624, 151 S.E.2d 582 (1966).

By its passage of Sess. Laws 1987 Ch. 231, the Legislature apparently intended to carve out a small exception in Anson County for a particular portion of the gun-deer season. The intent of the Legislature to have Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 take precedence over G.S. 113-291.5 is obvious for the following reasons: (1) the local law was enacted subsequent to G.S. 113-291.5; (2) Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 expressly references G.S. 113-291.5; and (3) Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 is more specific than G.S. 113-291.5.

However, if Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 were to be challenged, it may not withstand scrutiny. G.S. 113-131(a) provides that, "The marine and estuarine and wildlife resources of the State belong to the people of the State as a whole. The Department and the Wildlife Resources Commission are charged with stewardship of these resources."

In addition, G.S. 113-133.1 limits the extent of local regulation of wildlife resources. Subsection (a) expressly states that:

Nothing in this section is intended to invalidate local legislation or local ordinances which exercise valid powers over subjects other than the conservation of wildlife resources, even though an incidental effect may consist of an overlapping or conflict of jurisdiction as to some particular provision not essential to the conservation objectives set out in this Subchapter.

Subsection (f) provides:

The Wildlife Resources Commission is directed to review periodically all local acts affecting conservation of wildlife resources and notify local authorities and the General Assembly as to those that:

(1) Substantially duplicate provisions of this Subchapter.

(2) Seriously conflict with conservation policies set out in this Subchapter.

(3) Seriously conflict with conservation policies developed for the people of this state as a whole by the Wildlife Resources Commission.

In 1982, the Attorney General issued an opinion relying on the aforementioned statutes which concluded that a county may not adopt an ordinance regulating the methods of trapping wildlife. The reasoning used in the opinion was that by giving WRC the sole authority to manage the wildlife resources for the people of North Carolina, the Legislature has preempted the area of wildlife conservation and management with the exception of those local acts and ordinances which exercise valid powers, i.e., safety, health and welfare and which may have an incidental effect on wildlife resources. Because Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 does not address the safety, health or welfare of the citizens affected by the legislation, but rather, regulates the manner of taking wildlife it arguable goes beyond the constraints provided by G.S. 113-133.1.

The opinion, however, did not address the issue of whether the Legislature can subsequently enact local acts (as opposed to city or county ordinances) which regulate the wildlife resources. Pursuant to its constitutional mandate, the Legislature can enact local laws which regulate wildlife resources.

First, the Legislature may, and has, delegated a portion of its power to regulate the wildlife resources of the State, but it may not abdicate its power. Adams v. North Carolina Dep't of Natural & Economic Resources, 295 N.C. 683, 249 S.E.2d 402 (1978).

Second, it may be argued that the Legislature only intended county and city ordinances to be restricted by G.S. 113-133.1. Subsection (b) refers to "special, local, and private acts and ordinances" enacted prior to the ratification date of the statute. The subsection also refers to "local legislation or local ordinances." Subsection (c) refers to both preexisting and prospective "city or county ordinances." Finally, subsection (f) refers to "local acts" which fall outside the constraints of the statute. However, the subsection merely directs WRC to review and report such local acts.

Based on the foregoing principles of statutory construction, Sess. Laws 1987 ch. 231 should be enforced in all of Anson County notwithstanding either G.S. 113-291.5 or WRC's administrative rules.

2. Does the WRC have authority to establish rules on its game lands that contradict state or local laws when the purpose is regulation of hunting, manner of taking, or wildlife conservation?

WRC cannot promulgate valid administrative rules to override a local act of the Legislature. Although an agency may be granted limited powers to promulgate rules for the implementation of statutes, such rules do not have the effect of substantive law, and may not be promulgated contrary to statutory provisions. Adams v. North Carolina Dept. of Natural & Economic Resources, Supra; States' Rights Democratic Party v. State Bd. of Elections, 229 N.C. 179, 49 S.E.2d 379 (1948). Likewise, an agency cannot promulgate a rule which, in effect, amends or repeals a statute. Only the Legislature may amend or repeal its statutes. Ramsey v. North Carolina Veterans Comm'n, 261 N.C. 645, 135 S.E.2d 659 (1964).

WRC is given broad authority in G.S. 113-264 to regulate its game lands. G.S. 113-264(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

The Department [Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources] and the Wildlife Resources Commission are granted the power by rule to license, regulate, prohibit, or restrict the public as to use and enjoyment of, or harm to, any property of the Department or the Wildlife Resources Commission, and may charge the public reasonable fees for access to or use of such property.

"Property" as used in that section includes game lands.

However, this broad grant of authority does not give WRC the power to promulgate rules which conflict with other statutes and local laws enacted by the Legislature. Therefore, any rules that contain provisions which are conflicting, are invalid to the extent of the conflicting language.

Ann Reed, Senior Deputy Attorney General

Melissa L. Trippe, Assistant Attorney General