Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Legally speaking, a clam is different from a deer, being slower afoot — a hard lesson learned recently by Tacoma, Wash., general practitioner Stephen G. Johnson. Johnson’s client, Timothy M. Longshore, was charged with stealing 340 pounds of clams from a natural clam bed at 4 a.m. on Oct. 6, 1997, on a private beach near Puget Sound. Johnson argued that the clams belonged to no one because they were wildlife. Clams in a natural bed are wild animals, or ferae naturae, not “reduced to possession,” he argued. For example, Johnson said, if a hunter tracked a deer onto private property and then shot it, the property owner would have no right to claim that it was his deer. But while a deer roams, a clam does not. And the sedentary way of the mollusk doomed Johnson’s client. Clams — which pretty much stay put, aside from an occasional skitter, according to a mollusk expert — become part of private property when they take up residence there, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled. Therefore, taking the shellfish from private land constitutes theft, the court unanimously held, refusing to reverse the felony conviction. “In this respect clams differ from fish, game birds and game animals in their wild or natural state,” the court said. State v. Longshore, No. 68531-2 (Aug. 17, 2000). The court said that the defense wasn’t helped by the fact that the Washington legislature had exempted shellfish from its definition of wildlife. Professor Don E. Hemmes, chairman of the biology department at the University of Hawaii, confirmed about clams, “They have very little mobility.” Although embryonic clams ride the currents, as grown-ups they are likelier to scoot down into the tidewater mud, he said. The prosecutor, David B. St. Pierre, assistant city attorney in Bremerton, Wash., said he compared clams to tree seeds: if a seed blows onto private property and takes root, the tree belongs to the landowner. “This was a little, tiny Theft II case that determined a major issue in property law in Washington,” said St. Pierre. It squarely addressed for the first time whether a person steals when taking wild shellfish from private land, he said. “It’s a very touchy political subject” in Washington, said Johnson, the defender. Over the years, he said, native tribes have rankled property owners by winning the right to harvest native salmon and shellfish. Although the defendant is a member of the Skokomish tribe, he did not assert tribal harvesting rights in his defense. He had served his eight-month sentence by the time his first appeal was decided.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.