Here are some excerpts: Respondents participate in the captive cervid industry … Respondents rely on an interstate market in captive cervids to obtain the animals they need for their breeding operations and to meet demands for hunting on their preserves. Respondent Hill is the co-owner of ... a large hunting preserve and white-tailed deer breeding operation. … he has about 300 deer in his hunting preserve and about 500 deer in his breeding facility. Respondent Broadway is the owner of … a large hunting preserve and luxury lodge. ... also maintains an elk and red deer breeding operation to stock his hunting preserve. Respondent Grace is the owner of … a breeding facility for white-tailed deer, sika, and red deer. He also brokers deals between breeders and hunting preserves and presides over periodic captive cervid auctions. Cervids, like those owned by Respondents, can be infected with a fatal neurodegenerative disease known as chronic wasting disease (“CWD”). Even though captive cervids are members of species that are wild by nature, Respondents argue they cannot be “wildlife” because they are domesticated and, therefore, akin to livestock. ... Because captive cervids are too domesticated to qualify as “wildlife,” Respondents contend those individual animals cannot – by definition – qualify as “game.” The Court rejects these readings. The terms “game” and “wildlife” are plain and unambiguous as used in article IV, section 40(a), which is concerned with the preservation and conservation of the state’s forestry and wildlife resources. In this context, the term “wildlife” plainly includes all species that are wild by nature. Applying these plain meanings, Respondents’ cervids – whether tame or wild – are “game” and “wildlife” within the meaning of article IV, section 40(a). In sum, the Court holds the terms “game” and “wildlife” as used in article IV, section 40(a) are unambiguous: “wildlife” means species that are wild by nature, and “game” means wildlife species that are often pursued for sport, food, or other lawful ends. ...this Court holds Respondents’ captive cervids are subject to regulation by the Commission ... as “game … and wildlife resources of the state” because (a) those cervids are members of species that are wild by nature and, therefore, are “wildlife;” (b) they are members of wildlife species generally pursued for food, sport, or other lawful ends and, therefore, are “game;” and (c) even though privately owned, they are physically located within the borders of this state and, therefore, are “resources of the state.” Appellants’ Point I is granted. ...the Court holds Respondents are not engaged in a “farming [or] ranching practice” within the meaning of that provision. Appellants’ Point II is granted. End Excerpts. Until the lawyers pick this clean we won't know for sure, but it appears to be game-set-match, unless the fake hunt guys want to take a stab at the US Supreme Court.