Oregon Revised Statutes
Or. Rev. Stat. § 498.042 (2026)
Removal of parts of wildlife and waste of wildlife prohibited
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ORSoregonlegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
498.042 Removal of parts of wildlife and waste of wildlife prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person may not remove the following parts from the carcass of any wildlife and utilize only those parts so removed:
(a) From the carcass of any game mammal or game bird, the head, antlers, horns, hide or plumage.
(b) From the carcass of a black bear or cougar, the paws, gallbladder, sex organs or bones.
(c) From the carcass of a sturgeon, salmon or steelhead, the eggs.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the removal of wildlife parts by a person:
(a) When engaged in lawful trapping activities.
(b) When utilizing those game mammals or game birds that the State Fish and Wildlife Commission by rule declares to be inedible.
(3) No person shall waste any edible portion of any game mammal, game bird or game fish or the pelt of any fur-bearing mammal. [1973 c.723 §80; 2016 c.37 §3]
498.045 [Repealed by 1973 c.723 §130]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State v. Barton, 468 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Barton, 468 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” Again, the leg- islature has specifically criminalized that conduct under ORS 498.042(3) when the violation of that law is done with a culpable mental state pursuant to ORS 496.”
State v. Fritz, 695 P.2d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 498.042(2); ORS 496.992(1). During an investigation, Officer Emerson of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife interrogated defendant twice.”
State v. Hastings, 571 P.2d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “Defendant appeals his conviction under ORS 498.042(2), 1 waste of a game animal (elk), raising five assignments of error.”
State v. Satchell, 150 P.3d 4 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “002, and three counts of waste of a game mammal, an elk, ORS 498.042. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress incriminating statements he made to Oregon state troopers.”
State v. Wagner, 524 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “On appeal, he asserts that his conduct occurred in the exercise of treaty hunting rights, such that the Oregon courts lack the authority to enforce the state hunt- ing laws against defendant. Although defendant did not raise that issue in the trial court, in his view, his…”
State v. Person, 342 Or. App. 724 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “After a bench trial, defendant was found to have committed waste of a game mammal, ORS 498.042(3), as a Class A violation. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in applying a culpable mental state requirement of criminal negligence rather than knowledge.”
State v. Sagdal, 61 P.3d 975 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “waste of a game mammal, ORS 498.042, and one count of aiding in a game violation, ORS 496.”
State v. Person, 342 Or. App. 724 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “After a bench trial, defendant was found to have committed waste of a game mammal, ORS 498.042(3), as a Class A violation. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in applying a culpable mental state requirement of criminal negligence rather than knowledge.”
State v. Rosas, 813 P.2d 77 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “ORS 498.042(2); OAR 635-65-750(2). He appeals his sentence, contending that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay $400 in restitution.”
State v. Herrera, 952 P.2d 566 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “002, and wasting game, ORS 498.042(2). Defendant entered pleas of not guilty at his arraignment on January 9,1995.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 498.042(2) — 4 cases
State v. Fritz, 695 P.2d 972 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). “ORS 498.042(2); ORS 496.992(1). During an investigation, Officer Emerson of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife interrogated defendant twice.”
State v. Hastings, 571 P.2d 1284 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “Defendant appeals his conviction under ORS 498.042(2), 1 waste of a game animal (elk), raising five assignments of error.”
State v. Rosas, 813 P.2d 77 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “ORS 498.042(2); OAR 635-65-750(2). He appeals his sentence, contending that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay $400 in restitution.”
State v. Herrera, 952 P.2d 566 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “002, and wasting game, ORS 498.042(2). Defendant entered pleas of not guilty at his arraignment on January 9,1995.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 498.042(3) — 4 cases
State v. Barton, 468 P.3d 510 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” Again, the leg- islature has specifically criminalized that conduct under ORS 498.042(3) when the violation of that law is done with a culpable mental state pursuant to ORS 496.”
State v. Wagner, 524 P.3d 564 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “On appeal, he asserts that his conduct occurred in the exercise of treaty hunting rights, such that the Oregon courts lack the authority to enforce the state hunt- ing laws against defendant. Although defendant did not raise that issue in the trial court, in his view, his…”
State v. Person, 342 Or. App. 724 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “After a bench trial, defendant was found to have committed waste of a game mammal, ORS 498.042(3), as a Class A violation. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in applying a culpable mental state requirement of criminal negligence rather than knowledge.”
State v. Person, 342 Or. App. 724 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “After a bench trial, defendant was found to have committed waste of a game mammal, ORS 498.042(3), as a Class A violation. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in applying a culpable mental state requirement of criminal negligence rather than knowledge.”
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.