Wash. Rev. Code » Title 77 · Chapter 77.15
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.580 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful use of a net to take fish in the second degree if the person:
(a) Lays, sets, uses, or controls a net or other device or equipment capable of taking fish from the waters of this state, except if the person has a valid license for such fishing gear from the director under this title and is acting in accordance with all rules of the commission and director; or
(b) Fails to return unauthorized fish to the water immediately while otherwise lawfully operating a net under a valid license.
(2) A person is guilty of unlawful use of a net to take fish in the first degree if the person:
(a) Commits the act described by subsection (1) of this section; and
(b) The violation occurs within five years of entry of a prior conviction for a gross misdemeanor or felony under this title involving fish, other than a recreational fishing violation, or involving unlawful use of nets.
(3)(a) Unlawful use of a net to take fish in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke any license held under this title allowing commercial net fishing used in connection with the crime.
(b) Unlawful use of a net to take fish in the first degree is a class C felony. Upon conviction, the department shall order a one-year suspension of all commercial fishing privileges requiring a license under this title.
(4) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, it is lawful to use a landing net to land fish otherwise legally hooked.
[ 2000 c 107 s 252; 1998 c 190 s 50.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2007–2012 · leading case: State v. Jim, 273 P.3d 434 (Wash. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jim, 273 P.3d 434 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 3× “¶6 Jim challenged the State’s jurisdiction to prosecute him for an alleged criminal violation at Maryhill. Specifically, Jim filed a motion in the Klickitat County District Court to dismiss this case because the State lacks jurisdiction to regulate or prosecute him under RCW 77.”
State v. Cayenne, 158 P.3d 623 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “And the State charged Cayenne with two counts of felony first degree unlawful use of nets to take fish, contrary to RCW 77.15.580(2), (3)(b). ¶ 3 A jury found Cayenne guilty of count two as charged.”
State v. Cayenne, 195 P.3d 521 (Wash. 2008). “The officers arrested Cayenne, and the State charged him by information with two counts of felony first degree unlawful use of nets to take fish, violating RCW 77.15.580. Under this statute, a person is guilty if the person lays, sets, uses, or controls a net capable of taking…”
State v. Cayenne, 139 Wash. App. 114 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “And the State charged Cayenne with two counts of felony first degree unlawful use of nets to take fish, contrary to RCW 77.15.580(2) and (3)(b). ¶3 A jury found Cayenne guilty of count two as charged.”
State v. Cayenne, 195 P.3d 521 (Wash. 2008). “The officers arrested Cayenne, and the State charged him by information with two counts of felony first degree unlawful use of nets to take fish, violating RCW 77.15.580. Under this statute, a person is guilty if the person lays, sets, uses, or controls a net capable of taking…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.580(2) — 2 cases
State v. Cayenne, 158 P.3d 623 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “And the State charged Cayenne with two counts of felony first degree unlawful use of nets to take fish, contrary to RCW 77.15.580(2), (3)(b). ¶ 3 A jury found Cayenne guilty of count two as charged.”
State v. Cayenne, 139 Wash. App. 114 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “And the State charged Cayenne with two counts of felony first degree unlawful use of nets to take fish, contrary to RCW 77.15.580(2) and (3)(b). ¶3 A jury found Cayenne guilty of count two as charged.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 77.15.580(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Jim, 273 P.3d 434 (Wash. 2012). “¶6 Jim challenged the State’s jurisdiction to prosecute him for an alleged criminal violation at Maryhill. Specifically, Jim filed a motion in the Klickitat County District Court to dismiss this case because the State lacks jurisdiction to regulate or prosecute him under RCW 77.”
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.