The doctrine of state ownership of wildlife, as enunciated in the late 19th century United States Supreme Court decision in Geer v. Connecticut,¹ has long been used to justify state restrictions on the taking of wildlife, particularly measures which discriminate against nonresidents. In the last half century, however, the Court's decisions have chipped away at the Geer rationale while preserving its result, thus creating an anomaly in the law. When the Court finally abandoned Geer altogether on April 24, it came almost as an anticlimax. In Hughes v. Oklahoma,² the Court overruled Geer in the process of holding thatt an Oklahoma law banning the export for sale of minnows obtained in the state violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.³

The final demise of the Geer doctrine is of limited significance in light of its gradual erosion over the years. Indeed, Hughes may have little actual effect on the authority and wildlife management practices of the states, as decisions by the Supreme Court in recent years have already gone far to eliminate discriminatory regulation in this area. Nonetheless, the case stands as an important statement of the relationship between the states and wildlife within their borders, and in this respect it will undoubtedly assume heightened significance as the ever-expanding federal wildlife program continues to crowd what had once been the states' exclusive domain.