The purpose of this research was to explore the perceived harmfulness, wrongfulness, and seriousness of wildlife crimes, such as illegal or unlicensed hunting or fishing. Research questions included how offenses against wildlife are perceived, compared to offenses against persons and property, and how perceptions of harmfulness and wrongfulness impact perceptions of wildlife offense seriousness. A survey modeled after previous studies of crime seriousness was administered to a college student sample. The results showed that wildlife offenses were ranked as less serious, harmful, and wrong than those against persons and property, and also less than those against companion animals and animals on farms. Perceived wrongfulness and harmfulness were significant predictors of perceived seriousness of wildlife offenses, with wrongfulness being the stronger predictor. Results are contextualized within theoretical frameworks that offer insights as to why wildlife crime is not viewed as seriously as other offense types.