Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, § 11601 (2026)

Unlawful hunting of moose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Hunting with permittee.  A person may not hunt moose with a permittee unless that person is a subpermittee authorized in accordance with this section.  
[PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF).]
2.  Presence of permittee.  A subpermittee may not hunt moose if that subpermittee is not in the presence of the permittee while hunting moose. A subpermittee is not in the presence of a permittee if contact between the permittee and the subpermittee requires visual or audio enhancement devices, including binoculars or citizen band radios.  
[PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF).]
3.  One subpermittee.  A permittee may not hunt moose with more than one authorized subpermittee.  
[PL 2003, c. 414, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF).]
4.  Unlawful possession.  A person may not possess a moose that has been hunted in violation of this section.  
[PL 2003, c. 655, Pt. B, §176 (NEW); PL 2003, c. 655, Pt. B, §422 (AFF).]
A person who violates this section commits a Class E crime.   [PL 2003, c. 552, §6 (RPR); PL 2003, c. 552, §15 (AFF); PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF); PL 2003, c. 655, Pt. C, §§2, 6 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 2003, c. 414, §A2 (NEW). PL 2003, c. 414, §D7 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 552, §6 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 552, §15 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 614, §9 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 655, §B176 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 655, §§B422,C2,6 (AFF).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2017–2017 · leading case: State of Maine v. Michael J. Siracusa Jr., 2017 ME 84 (Me. 2017).
State of Maine v. Michael J. Siracusa Jr., 2017 ME 84 (Me. 2017). “The court apparently purposefully omitted the remainder of the usual jury instruction on voluntariness, which distinguished a conscious choice from "a reflex, seizure or some other act over which he has no conscious control.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, § 11601(4) — 1 case
State of Maine v. Michael J. Siracusa Jr., 2017 ME 84 (Me. 2017). “The court apparently purposefully omitted the remainder of the usual jury instruction on voluntariness, which distinguished a conscious choice from "a reflex, seizure or some other act over which he has no conscious control.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.