Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 29.99 (2026)
Wildlife violator compact surcharge
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
29.99(1)(1) If a court imposes a fine or forfeiture for a violation of a provision of this chapter or an order issued under this chapter, the court shall impose a wildlife violator compact surcharge under ch. 814 equal to $5 for the violation.
29.99(2)(2) If a fine or forfeiture is suspended in whole or in part, the wildlife violator compact surcharge shall be reduced in proportion to the suspension unless the court directs otherwise.
29.99(3)(3) If any deposit is made for an offense to which this section applies, the person making the deposit shall also deposit a sufficient amount to include the wildlife violator compact surcharge under this section. If the deposit is forfeited, the amount of the wildlife violator compact surcharge shall be transmitted to the secretary of administration under sub. (4). If the deposit is returned, the wildlife violator compact surcharge shall also be returned.
29.99(4)(4) The clerk of the court shall collect and transmit to the county treasurer the wildlife violator compact surcharge and other amounts required under s. 59.40 (2) (m). The county treasurer shall then make payment to the secretary of administration as provided in s. 59.25 (3) (f) 2. The secretary of administration shall deposit the amount of the wildlife violator compact surcharge in the conservation fund.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: State v. Ahrling, 528 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. 1995).
State v. Ahrling, 528 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. 1995). “99(lm)(b), Stats.: For possessing clams in violation of s.”
Lac Du Flambeau Band v. Stop Treaty Abuse-Wisconsin, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 1339 (W.D. Wis. 1991). “In addition, Wis.Stat. § 29.99 provides for forfeitures for violations of the provisions of § 29.”
State v. Lemieux, 317 N.W.2d 166 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “224(2) were punishable “by a forfeiture of not more than $100 and, in addition, by the payment of a natural resources assessment equal to 75% of the amount of the forfeiture.”
Brown, Joseph v. Kemp, Jeffrey (W.D. Wis. 2020). “223 (4)(a); Wis. Stat. § 29.99 (11r)(a). In 1991, the state cited three individuals for interfering with Chippewa tribal members’ spearfishing.”
State v. Denk, 345 N.W.2d 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “He was ordered to pay a forfeiture of $100 pursuant to sec. 29.99(6), Stats. (1979-80). This conviction was civil, not criminal.”
— Wis. Stat. § 29.99(4) — 1 case
State v. Lemieux, 317 N.W.2d 166 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “224(2) were punishable “by a forfeiture of not more than $100 and, in addition, by the payment of a natural resources assessment equal to 75% of the amount of the forfeiture.”
— Wis. Stat. § 29.99(6) — 1 case
State v. Denk, 345 N.W.2d 66 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984). “He was ordered to pay a forfeiture of $100 pursuant to sec. 29.99(6), Stats. (1979-80). This conviction was civil, not criminal.”
— Wis. Stat. § 29.99(lm)(a) — 1 case
State v. Ahrling, 528 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. 1995). “99(lm)(b), Stats.: For possessing clams in violation of s.”
— Wis. Stat. § 29.99(lm)(b) — 1 case
State v. Ahrling, 528 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. 1995). “99(lm)(b), Stats.: For possessing clams in violation of s.”
— Wis. Stat. § 29.99(lm)(c) — 1 case
State v. Ahrling, 528 N.W.2d 431 (Wis. 1995). “99(lm)(b), Stats.: For possessing clams in violation of s.”
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.