496.705 Damage
suits for unlawful killing of wildlife; exception; jurisdiction of courts. (1) The State Fish and Wildlife
Commission may institute suit for the recovery of damages for the unlawful
taking or killing of any of the wildlife referred to in subsection (2) of this
section that are the property of the state.
(2)(a) The
damages referred to in subsection (1) of this section are as follows:
(A) Each game
mammal other than moose, mountain sheep, mountain goat, elk, gray wolf, black
bear, cougar or silver gray squirrel, or deer or antelope described in
subparagraphs (D) and (E) of this paragraph, $1,000.
(B) Each moose,
mountain sheep or mountain goat, other than those described in subparagraphs
(F), (G) and (H) of this paragraph, $10,000.
(C) Each elk,
other than those described in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph, $5,000.
(D) Each deer
with at least four points on one antler, gray wolf, black bear or cougar,
$7,500.
(E) Each antelope
with at least one horn equal to or greater than 14 inches, $7,500.
(F) Each moose
with antlers, $50,000.
(G) Each mountain
sheep that has at least one horn equal to or greater than one half curl,
$50,000.
(H) Each mountain
goat that has at least one horn equal to or greater than six inches, $50,000.
(I) Each elk with
at least six points on one antler, $15,000.
(J) Each silver
gray squirrel, $100.
(K) Each game
bird other than wild turkey or sage grouse, $20.
(L) Each wild
turkey or sage grouse, $1,000.
(M) Each game
fish other than salmon, steelhead trout, halibut or sturgeon, $25.
(N) Each sturgeon
other than those specified in subparagraph (O) of this paragraph, salmon,
steelhead trout or halibut, $750.
(O) Each
oversized sturgeon, as specified by the commission by rule, $5,000.
(P) Each
fur-bearing mammal other than bobcat or fisher, $100.
(Q) Each bobcat
or fisher, $700.
(R) Each specimen
of any wildlife species whose survival is specified by the wildlife laws or the
laws of the United States as threatened or endangered, $2,500.
(S) Each specimen
of any wildlife species otherwise protected by the wildlife laws or the laws of
the United States, but not otherwise referred to in this subsection, $50.
(T) Each bald
eagle, golden eagle, goshawk, osprey, peregrine falcon or any other raptor
listed as a threatened species or an endangered species by the commission by
rule, $5,000.
(U) Each raptor
except those specified in subparagraph (T) of this paragraph, $2,000.
(b) For purposes
of this subsection:
(A) A point must
be at least one inch, measured from the main beam of the antler to the tip of
the point.
(B) Horn length
must be measured from the base of the hairline to the tip of the horn.
(3) In any such
action, the court shall award to the prevailing party, in addition to costs and
disbursements, reasonable attorney fees.
(4) Such civil
damages shall be in addition to other penalties prescribed by the wildlife laws
for the unlawful taking or killing of wildlife.
(5) Any circuit
or justice court has jurisdiction to try any case for the recovery of damages
for the unlawful taking or killing of any of the wildlife as provided by this
section.
(6) Each taking
or killing of a single animal referred to in subsection (2) of this section
constitutes a separate unlawful taking or killing for purposes of this section.
(7) Subject to
ORS 496.690, this section does not apply to the unintentional taking or killing
of wildlife incident to an otherwise lawful activity. [Amended by 1961 c.343 §4;
1969 c.302 §1; 1973 c.723 §32; 1981 c.108 §1; 1995 c.658 §106; 2003 c.98 §1;
2009 c.778 §3; 2011 c.363 §1; 2016 c.37 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case:
State v. Shockey, 398 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Shockey, 398 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 26× “It concluded that ORS 496.705 3 — *721 which authorizes ODFW to file a civil suit to recover statutorily prescribed “damages” for the unlawful taking or killing of specified wildlife—establishes the values of different wildlife (including raptors) for purposes of ORS 137.”
State v. Couch, 147 P.3d 322 (Or. 2006).
· cites it 2× “That fact is further borne out by the text of ORS 496.705. Subsection (1) of that statute provides: "The State Fish and Wildlife Commission may institute suit for the recovery of damages for the unlawful taking or killing of any of the wildlife referred to in subsection (2) of…”
State v. Dickerson, 345 P.3d 447 (Or. 2015).
“, ORS 496.705 (providing that the state “may institute suit for the recovery of damages for the unlawful taking or killing of any of the wildlife referred to in subsection (2) of this section that are the property of the state”).”
Simpson v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 255 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” By referring specifically to wildlife that are the property of the state, that statute indicates that some wildlife are not the property of the state.”
State v. Shockey, 399 P.3d 491 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“We remanded for resentencing based on our determination that no other evidence supported the award of restitution to ODFW.”
State v. Selmer, 509 P.3d 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “106,” which provides for restitution in criminal cases. On reconsideration in Shockey, we agreed with the defendant that because there was no evidence the state had suffered any economic damages, the court was foreclosed from imposing either restitution or a compensatory fine.”
State v. Demeritt, 324 Or. App. 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for tak- ing wildlife in violation of wildlife law, ORS 498.”
State v. Couch, 147 P.3d 322 (Or. 2006).
· cites it 2× “That fact is further borne out by the text of ORS 496.705. Subsection (1) of that statute provides: “The State Fish and Wildlife Commission may institute suit for the recovery of damages for the unlawful taking or killing of any of the wildlife referred to in subsection (2) of…”
State v. Rosas, 813 P.2d 77 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“1 ORS 496.705, which provides that the State Fish and Wildlife Commission may recover civil damages for the unlawful taking or killing of wildlife and which establishes the amount of damages recoverable for each wildlife species, is inapplicable to this case, because there was…”
State ex rel. State Game Comm'n v. Gold Hill Irrigation Dist., 523 P.2d 1287 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 5× “Plaintiff, Oregon State Game Commission, brought an action for damages under ORS 496.705 against Gold Hill Irrigation District arising from the intentional release by defendant of a quantity of a petroleum-related product into one of its water canals.”
State v. Dickerson (Or. 2015).
“, ORS 496.705 (providing that the state “may institute suit for the recovery of damages for the unlawful taking or killing of any of the wildlife referred to in subsection (2) of this section that are the property of the state”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.705(1) — 1 case
Simpson v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 255 P.3d 565 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“” By referring specifically to wildlife that are the property of the state, that statute indicates that some wildlife are not the property of the state.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.705(2)(D) — 1 case
State v. Demeritt, 324 Or. App. 183 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for tak- ing wildlife in violation of wildlife law, ORS 498.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.705(2)(a)(U) — 1 case
State v. Shockey, 398 P.3d 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“It concluded that ORS 496.705 3 — *721 which authorizes ODFW to file a civil suit to recover statutorily prescribed “damages” for the unlawful taking or killing of specified wildlife—establishes the values of different wildlife (including raptors) for purposes of ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 496.705(2)(d) — 1 case
State v. Selmer, 509 P.3d 187 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“106,” which provides for restitution in criminal cases. On reconsideration in Shockey, we agreed with the defendant that because there was no evidence the state had suffered any economic damages, the court was foreclosed from imposing either restitution or a compensatory fine.”
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.