Wash. Rev. Code » Title 77 · Chapter 77.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 77.12.010 (2026)

Limitation on prohibiting fishing with bait or artificial lures

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The commission shall not adopt rules that categorically prohibit fishing with bait or artificial lures in streams, rivers, beaver ponds, and lakes except that the commission may adopt rules and regulations restricting fishing methods upon a determination by the director that an individual body of water or part thereof clearly requires a fishing method prohibition to conserve or enhance the fisheries resource or to provide selected fishing alternatives.
[ 2000 c 107 s 210; 1985 c 438 s 1; 1980 c 78 s 12; 1977 c 74 s 1; 1955 c 36 s 77.12.010. Prior: 1947 c 275 s 11; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 5992-21.]

Notes:

Effective date—Intent, construction—Savings—Severability—1980 c 78: See notes following RCW 77.04.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1956–2000 · leading case: Armstrong v. State, 958 P.2d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Armstrong v. State, 958 P.2d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “According to the trial court, the “plain meaning” of the “manner of taking encompasses more than just the method used for killing wildlife.”
Hartman v. Washington State Game Comm'n, 532 P.2d 614 (Wash. 1975). · cites it 3× “Respondents, however, take the position that the commission’s regulatory authority is qualified by RCW 77.12.010, which provides: The wild animals and wild birds in the state of Washington and the game fish in the waters thereof are the property of the state.”
State v. Mierz, 901 P.2d 286 (Wash. 1995). “” RCW 77.12.010; Judd v. Bernard, 49 Wn.2d 619, 622 , 304 P.”
Puget Sound Gillnetters Ass'n v. Moos, 565 P.2d 1151 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 2× “2d 614 (1975), this court looked to RCW 77.12.010, which provided as follows: The game animals .”
Dep't of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., 548 P.2d 1058 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “See RCW 77.12.010, .040. The Supreme Court recognized in Puyallup II on page 48, that conservation decisions must be made by an expert.”
State v. Rhodes, 795 P.2d 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Under that authority, the commission promulgated and published a rule allowing buck, but not doe, hunting during the time Rhodes let fly his errant shot.”
State v. Longshore, 5 P.3d 1256 (Wash. 2000). “010(16) exempts shellfish from this designation: “Wildlife” means all species of the animal kingdom whose members exist in Washington in a wild state.”
State v. Longshore, 5 P.3d 1256 (Wash. 2000). “010(16) exempts shell-fish from this designation: "Wildlife" means all species of the animal kingdom whose members exist in Washington in a wild state.”
State v. Moses, 483 P.2d 832 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 2× “600 (1896)), and the legislature was doing no more than declaring legislatively what already was the law when, in RCW 77.12.010, it said: The wild animals and wild birds in the state of Washington and the game fish in the waters thereof are the property of the state.”
Nw. Gillnetters Ass'n v. Sandison, 628 P.2d 800 (Wash. 1981). “RCW 77.12.010 provides: [G]ame fish shall only be taken at such times or places, by such means, in such manner, or in such quantities as will in the judgment of the commission maximize public recreational opportunities but not impair the supply thereof.”
State v. Satiacum, 314 P.2d 400 (Wash. 1957). “030 and rules and regulations promulgated by the state game commission under authority of RCW 77.12.010 et seq. ; and (4) possession of food fish during the closed season, contrary to rules and regulations promulgated by the director of fisheries under authority of RCW 75.”
Judd v. Bernard, 304 P.2d 1046 (Wash. 1956). “The holding in that case regarding the right to use the surface of the lake was not based upon the fact that the lake bed boundaries had not been determined, but on the reasoning that these riparian rights, if not enjoyed and exercised in common, cannot be enjoyed or exercised…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.