496.680
Seizure of unlawful devices and unlawfully taken wildlife; forfeiture;
disposition; repayment of administrative costs. (1) All wildlife taken by, or in
the possession of any person in violation of the wildlife laws, and all guns,
boats, traps, fishing apparatus and implements used in angling, hunting or
trapping or taking any wildlife in violation of the wildlife laws may be seized
by any person authorized to enforce the wildlife laws, and may be forfeited.
(2) All wildlife
shot by any person while violating any provision of ORS 164.245 to 164.270 or
498.120 shall be seized by any person authorized to enforce the wildlife laws
and shall be forfeited.
(3) If forfeited,
such property shall be turned over to the State Fish and Wildlife Commission by
order of the court at the time of passing sentence for the violation.
(4) The
commission may dispose of such property in any manner it considers proper, but
the clear proceeds derived from the sale of any seized guns, boats, traps,
fishing apparatus or implements shall be deposited in the Common School Fund.
Any wildlife taken in violation of the wildlife laws may be disposed of
forthwith or used for food purposes, under rules of the commission, to prevent
spoilage.
(5) Upon
conviction of a person for taking wildlife while violating any provision of ORS
164.245 to 164.270 or 498.120, the court shall include in the sentence a
requirement that the convicted person pay to the seizing agency an amount equal
to the cost incurred in seizing, storing and disposing of the seized and
forfeited wildlife. [Amended by 1971 c.658 §19; 1973 c.723 §29; 1987 c.858 §6;
1993 c.440 §2; 1999 c.1051 §272]
496.685 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case:
State v. Kight, 339 Or. App. 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Kight, 339 Or. App. 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “680(1) does not apply because defendant did not take or possess the ram in violation of the wildlife laws” and that the trial court “lacked the authority to order defendant to forfeit” the trophy under ORS 496.680(2). The state responds that defendant did not preserve his…”
Dickens v. DeBolt, 602 P.2d 246 (Or. 1979).
“, the initial seizure of the fish) and that ORS 496.680(1) specifically authorizes game enforcement officers to seize fish caught in violation of wildlife laws.”
State v. Kight, 339 Or. App. 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 7× “680(1) does not apply because defendant did not take or possess the ram in violation of the wildlife laws” and that the trial court “lacked the authority to order defendant to forfeit” the trophy under ORS 496.680(2). The state responds that defendant did not preserve his…”
State v. New, 830 P.2d 614 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 496.680(1) provides: “All wildlife taken by, or in the possession of any person in violation of the wildlife laws, and all guns, boats, traps, fishing apparatus and implements used in angling, hunting or trapping or taking any wildlife in violation of the wildlife laws may…”
Dickens v. DeBolt, 602 P.2d 246 (Or. 1979).
“, the initial seizure of *11 the fish) and that ORS 496.680(1) specifically authorizes game enforcement officers to seize fish caught in violation of wildlife laws.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.680(1) — 5 cases
Dickens v. DeBolt, 602 P.2d 246 (Or. 1979).
“, the initial seizure of the fish) and that ORS 496.680(1) specifically authorizes game enforcement officers to seize fish caught in violation of wildlife laws.”
State v. Kight, 339 Or. App. 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“680(1) does not apply because defendant did not take or possess the ram in violation of the wildlife laws” and that the trial court “lacked the authority to order defendant to forfeit” the trophy under ORS 496.680(2). The state responds that defendant did not preserve his…”
State v. Kight, 339 Or. App. 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“680(1) does not apply because defendant did not take or possess the ram in violation of the wildlife laws” and that the trial court “lacked the authority to order defendant to forfeit” the trophy under ORS 496.680(2). The state responds that defendant did not preserve his…”
State v. New, 830 P.2d 614 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“ORS 496.680(1) provides: “All wildlife taken by, or in the possession of any person in violation of the wildlife laws, and all guns, boats, traps, fishing apparatus and implements used in angling, hunting or trapping or taking any wildlife in violation of the wildlife laws may…”
Dickens v. DeBolt, 602 P.2d 246 (Or. 1979).
“, the initial seizure of *11 the fish) and that ORS 496.680(1) specifically authorizes game enforcement officers to seize fish caught in violation of wildlife laws.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.680(2) — 2 cases
State v. Kight, 339 Or. App. 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“680(1) does not apply because defendant did not take or possess the ram in violation of the wildlife laws” and that the trial court “lacked the authority to order defendant to forfeit” the trophy under ORS 496.680(2). The state responds that defendant did not preserve his…”
State v. Kight, 339 Or. App. 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“680(1) does not apply because defendant did not take or possess the ram in violation of the wildlife laws” and that the trial court “lacked the authority to order defendant to forfeit” the trophy under ORS 496.680(2). The state responds that defendant did not preserve his…”
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.