NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal
correction before publication in the Pacific
Reporter. Readers are requested to bring
typographical or other formal errors to the
attention of the Clerk of the Appellate
Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska
99501, in order that corrections may be made
prior to permanent publication.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
DAVID JURCO, )
) Court of Appeals No. A-3558
Appellant, ) Trial Court No. 3PA-S90-190
Cr
)
v. )
) O P
I N I O N
STATE OF ALASKA, )
)
Appellee. ) [No. 1153 - August 30, 1991]
________________________________)
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judi
cial District, Palmer, Beverly W. Cutler,
Judge.
Appearances: David Jurco, pro se, Talkeetna,
for Appellant. Eugene B. Cyrus, Assistant
District Attorney, Steven H. Morrissett,
District Attorney, Palmer, and Charles E.
Cole, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Bryner, Chief Judge, and Coats and
Mannheimer, Judges.
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
On February 10, 1990, David Jurco called the Alaska
State Troopers to report that he had shot a moose which had
charged him at his Talkeetna residence. The trooper dispatcher
told Jurco not to touch the moose until the Troopers had
contacted a game warden.
Approximately one hour later, Fish and Wildlife Protec
tion Officer Garland Dobson telephoned Jurco. Dobson told Jurco
that the Alaska game regulations required Jurco to salvage the
meat from the moose and also required Jurco to turn the meat over
to the authorities. When Jurco learned that he could not keep
any of the moose meat, he told Dobson that he would not gut the
moose or take any other steps to salvage the meat, other than
allowing the officers to retrieve the carcass.
Officer Dobson, accompanied by Officer Michael Sears,
went to Jurco's residence and found the driveway blocked by a
car; signs reading "No Trespassing" had been erected at the
entrance to the property. Dobson spoke with Jurco, asking him
again if he was going to gut the moose; Jurco persisted in his
refusal to do this. Dobson then dragged the moose carcass to the
road so that it could be picked up by a charitable agency on the
Department of Public Safety's "road kill" list. While the
officers were waiting for the moose carcass to be picked up,
Officer Smith spoke with Jurco and gave him one more opportunity
to voluntarily gut the moose; Jurco once more declined.
Because of his refusal to gut the moose, Jurco was
charged with violating 5 AAC 92.410(b), a regulation which
governs the killing of game when required in the defense of life
or property. This regulation provides:
(b) Game taken in defense of life or
property is the property of the state. A
person taking such game shall immediately
salvage the meat ... and must immediately
surrender the salvaged meat to the [D]epart
ment [of Fish and Game]. ... A person taking
game under this section shall notify the
department of the taking immediately and
shall submit a written report of the
circumstances of the taking to the department
within 15 days after the taking. 1
Violation of this regulation is a class A misdemeanor under
AS 16.05.925. Jurco was convicted of this offense following a
jury trial in the Palmer district court. Superior Court Judge
Beverly W. Cutler, sitting pro tempore in the district court,
sentenced Jurco to 270 days in jail with 180 days suspended, plus
a $1000 fine with $600 suspended. Jurco was placed on 5 years'
probation. Judge Cutler gave Jurco the option of performing 240
hours of community work service in lieu of 30 days of his jail
sentence; Jurco accepted this offer.
Jurco now appeals his conviction, contending that he
was under no legal duty to gut the moose. We agree and reverse
his conviction.
The regulation under which Jurco was charged required
him to "immediately salvage the meat" of the moose and
"immediately surrender the salvaged meat" to the Department of
Fish and Game. The nub of this case, then, is the definition of
"salvage".
There is no definition of "salvage" contained in AS 16.
05.940, the definitional section of AS 16.05, nor is any
definition of this term contained in 5 AAC 92.990, the
definitional section of 5 AAC 92. This court therefore turns to
the dictionary to ascertain the common or "plain" meaning of the
word. Michael v. State, 767 P.2d 193, 197 (Alaska App. 1988).
Webster's New World Dictionary (3rd College Edition,
1988), page 1186, gives the pertinent definition of "salvage" as
"the saving or rescue of any goods, property, etc. from destruc
tion, damage, or waste". Thus, when 5 AAC 92.410(b) speaks of a
person's duty to "salvage" the meat of a game animal killed in
the defense of life or property, the regulation calls upon the
person to "sav[e] or rescue" the meat from "destruction, damage,
or waste".
Jurco did this. Upon killing the moose, he immediately
notified the authorities. The authorities came to his residence
in less than two hours. Upon their arrival, Jurco complied with
the second requirement of 5 AAC 92.410(b): the duty to
"immediately surrender" the salvaged meat to the Department of
Fish and Game.
We wish to emphasize that the duties of "salvaging" and
"surrendering" the meat are not met by merely notifying the
authorities of the location of the kill and inviting them to come
pick up the animal. A person who has killed a game animal in
defense of life or property is under a duty to deliver the meat
to the authorities and to exercise reasonable care in assuring
that the meat is delivered in an edible condition. These duties
may in some circumstances require the person to take affirmative
steps to preserve the meat and to transport the meat to the
authorities.
The Department is not obligated to retrieve an animal
killed in a remote location. Even when the kill occurs near a
roadway, as in the present case, the press of other business may
prevent the authorities from promptly coming to the site of the
kill to retrieve the animal. Thus, the person who has killed the
animal may be confronted with the practical necessity of gutting
the animal and cutting up the meat in order to comply with the
twin requirements of salvaging and surrendering the meat.
However, the circumstances of Jurco's case are
different. When Jurco telephoned the Troopers to notify them of
the kill, he was told that officers would come to his house and
that he should refrain from doing anything with the moose until
they arrived. When the officers got to Jurco's house, Jurco
turned the recently killed moose over to them; the animal was
dragged to the road, and a little later it was picked up by a
charitable organization.
Thus, while there will often be cases in which a person
must butcher a game animal in order to comply with the require
ments of 5 AAC 92.410(b), this was not true in Jurco's case.
Jurco complied with his legal obligations to preserve the meat
and surrender it to the authorities in edible condition. Under
the facts presented here, Jurco had no additional duty to butcher
the animal for the convenience of the authorities or the
charitable organization that ultimately received the meat.
For these reasons, the judgement of the district court
is REVERSED.
_______________________________
1 The evidence presented at Jurco's trial indicates that
the authorities gave Jurco an erroneous version of this
regulation. Dobson testified that, when he spoke with Jurco on
the telephone, he read Jurco the text of 5 AAC 92.410 from the
pamphlet, "Alaska Game Regulations", No. 30, for the year July 1,
1989 to June 30, 1990 (admitted at trial as Plaintiff's Exhibit
6). This regulation was substantially amended on August 20,
1989, shortly after the publication of this pamphlet. Thus, the
text of the regulation printed on page 9 of the pamphlet differs
substantially from the version of the regulation actually in
effect on February 10, 1990, when Jurco killed the moose.
However, this discrepancy does not affect our decision in this
case.
