Did a free hunting or fishing license let Catawba Nation members use South Carolina wildlife areas without a separate permit in 1995?

Official title

Concerning the Department of Natural Resources’ interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 27-16-120(E) (1994 Supp.) which deals with hunting and fishing licensure.

Requester

Buford S. Mabry, Jr., Chief Counsel, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Plain-English summary

A 1995 South Carolina Attorney General letter agreed with the Department of Natural Resources' interpretation that the cited statute entitled Catawba Nation members to recreational state hunting and fishing licenses without charge, not to use Wildlife Management Area land without a separate WMA permit. The author said the provision was awkwardly drafted and open to more than one reading.

The reason for accepting the department's reading was its role administering hunting and fishing licenses and the support the author found for that interpretation in the statutory language. The letter did not say a court had definitively settled the ambiguity or discuss every requirement for particular wildlife areas.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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.

Common questions

Q: Did the letter say a free state hunting license included a WMA permit? A: No. It supported the agency's position that the free recreational license and the WMA permit were separate.

Q: Was the statute described as unambiguous?
A: No. The letter called it susceptible to different interpretations and emphasized respectful consideration of the administering agency's reasonable interpretation.

Background and statutory framework

The Department of Natural Resources asked about its interpretation of a Catawba Nation licensing provision. The letter focused on the relationship between a free state license and access to Wildlife Management Area lands, applying the then-recognized weight given to an agency's interpretation of a statute it administers.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. § 27-16-120(E)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-21-1995/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995sept21mabry.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

September 21, 1995

Buford S. Mabry, Jr., Chief Counsel
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Post Office Box 167
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Dear Buford:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning the Department of Natural Resources' (the Department) interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 27-16-120(E) (1994 Supp.).

I ..

Based on your letter to Jay Bender dated November 3, 1994, it is my understanding that the Department reads § 27-16-120(E) as only entitling members of the Catawba Nation to recreational state hunting and fishing licenses free of charge. It does not further entitle Catawba Nation members to utilize Wildlife Management Area (WMA) lands without a WMA permit. I concur with your opinion that § 27-16-120(E) is not artfully drafted an~ thus, is susceptible to various interpretations. Moreover, I note that the Department is charged by law with the duty of issuing state hunting and fishing licenses and that the Department's administrative interpretation is reasonably supported by the statutory language. Thus, as the courts and this Office have often stated, the construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectful consideration and should not be overruled without compelling and cogent reasons. Dunton v. S.C. Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 291 S.C. 221, 353 S.E.2d 132 (1987); Emerson Electric Co. v. Wasson, 287 S.C. 394, 339 S.E.2d 118 (1986); Faile v. S.C. Employment Security Commission, 267 S.C. 536, 230 S.E.2d 219 (1976). Accordingly, cognizance and recognition of the Department's interpretation would be absolutely crucial in any construction of the statute.

RE.lBERT

c. D ENN IS Bt ;ILDI NG

•

POST OFFICE Box 11 549

•

CoL ~·\ IBI ,. S.C. 29:211-15-19

•

TELEPHONE:

803- 73-1-3970

•

F.KSl\flL E: sm-153-6283

Mr. Mabry
Page 2
September 21, 1995
Again, thank you for your letter. I trust the foregoing is responsive to your inquiry and that you will advise if clarification or additional assistance should be necessary.

Yours very truly,

I

I
I

L~illiams.

Ill
Deputy Attorney General

ZCW,III/an