Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 97A. GAME AND FISH
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 97A.325 (2026)

Penalties For Unlawfully Buying Or Selling Wild Animals

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Gross misdemeanor for sales of $300 or more.

(a) A person that buys or sells protected wild animals in violation of the game and fish laws where the sales total $300 or more is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. The person is subject to the penalty in section 97A.301, subdivision 2, except that the fine may not be less than $3,000 or more than $10,000.

(b) Licenses possessed by a person convicted under this subdivision are null and void and the person may not take wild animals for three years after the conviction.

Subd. 2.Deer; bear; moose; elk; caribou.

Except as provided in subdivision 1, a person that violates a provision of the game and fish laws relating to buying or selling deer, bear, moose, elk, or caribou is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Subd. 3.Small game and game fish.

Except as provided in subdivision 1, a person that buys or sells small game or game fish in violation of the game and fish laws where the sales total $50 or more is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Subd. 4.Fur-bearing animals.

Except as provided in subdivision 1, a person that buys fur-bearing animals in violation of the game and fish laws is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2011–2011 · leading case: State v. Barsness, 795 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Barsness, 795 N.W.2d 877 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “Appellant challenges his conviction of attempting to sell protected wild animals in violation of the game and fish laws under Minn.Stat. § 97A.325, subd. 1(a), arguing that his use of equipment tagged for infested-waters-only use to harvest minnows in non-infested waters is not…”
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.