Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Non-hunters in the field with you, but carrying a firearm for backup...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Milo View Post
    Insurance against what, the government? That's a great concept
    Well, the troopers wouldn't have a reason to bust him. if I were to take a non resident hunting with me, I would make sure he had a licence.
    Eccleasties 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, There for the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Milo View Post
      Insurance against what, the government? That's a great concept
      I completely agree with your point...we shouldn't need insurance against the gov't.

      I sort of view as insurance against the hassle of having to deal with it all. Unless there was another violation in the hunting party, it would be very hard to make "hunting without a license" stick based on the fact a non-resident was packing a rifle.

      But- you will have to appear in court, explain it to a judge, potentially hire an attorney...etc, etc., etc.. It would cost more than $85 to take the time off work to make the appearance. Much higher for a non-res to travel back and make that appearance.

      Most LEOs you encounter will have some common sense and some degree of savvy in detecting whether you're blowing smoke or not....but I wouldn't bet my hunt on it, in every organization there are folks who are overzealous with very little discretion.

      Simpler to produce the license and say- "I'm hunting moose and my buddy is hunting ptarmigan."
      "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

      Comment


      • #33
        Very interesting read. I can't wait for some LEO to try and contact me and my out of state buddies when we're "camping" during hunting season. Game on.

        Comment


        • #34
          I've hiked hundreds if not thousands of backcountry miles in my younger days during an open season of some type with a rifle (for "survival") and no license on me. I've packed out a dozen or more moose as a packer for a large guided outfit with a weapon for bear protection.

          It would be truly unfortunate if you ran into a LEO who would write you a ticket for those things, but it sure seems that if you were willing to fight it, a judge would see it your way...but then again, I dont insure my snowmachine since I dont expect I'll ever need to make a claim...

          Comment


          • #35
            Even if you do have a hunting license, until you've fired a shot or have game down, I think you'd be perfectly fine to decline an offer to produce a license. Camping, viewing game, hiking. None of those activities require a license to carry a firearm. It is required to have a license to pull the trigger, and according to some, after that split second, non-licensees can then pile on and begin shooting until the animal is dead. Some even claim it is legal to let a non-licensed child shoot game for you.

            Buying a license for someone who has no intention of shooting anything and presenting it to a fish cop to CYA makes no sense at all.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by hodgeman View Post
              Simpler to produce the license and say- "I'm hunting moose and my buddy is hunting ptarmigan."
              Lying to an officer is never a good idea.

              Comment


              • #37
                Some of you guys need to grow a pair and stand up for your rights. No need to spend money for cheap insurance. My brother came up here twice to go with me moose hunting. Both times he carried a weapon in the field. First time was on an ATV hunt and F&G came in on a helicopter to check camps. They quizzed us as to what we were doing, why bro didnt have a license, etc. Told them he was here for the fun of it and I was the one hunting. They started to get pushier and pushier and finally told them I would not answer any more of their questions. After awhile they left.

                Even though some of the agents think they are god, they are not. Carrying a rifle while riding an ATV in the woods is not hunting. Last time I checked this is still America and we are innocent till proven guilty.

                Second trip was to the Koyukuk. We checked in and the agent asked my brother if he was hunting and he said no, just came for the trip and wanted to fish for pike (brother was wearing a holster/revolver). The agent was very nice and offered him some suggestions and never hassled us at all.
                Edited to add Koyukuk post

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Snowwolfe View Post
                  Some of you guys need to grow a pair and stand up for your rights. No need to spend money for cheap insurance. My brother came up here twice to go with me moose hunting. Both times he carried a weapon in the field. First time was on an ATV hunt and F&G came in on a helicopter to check camps. They quizzed us as to what we were doing, why bro didnt have a license, etc. Told them he was here for the fun of it and I was the one hunting. They started to get pushier and pushier and finally told them I would not answer any more of their questions. After awhile they left.

                  Even though some of the agents think they are god, they are not. Carrying a rifle while riding an ATV in the woods is not hunting. Last time I checked this is still America and we are innocent till proven guilty.
                  What he said!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by stid2677 View Post
                    A hunting license is not required to carry a gun anywhere in Alaksa.

                    Does someone fishing have to have a hunting license, NO.

                    Now can you let your cousin shoot your moose and you tag it NO.

                    Could you have some kind if negative interaction with LEO, maybe.

                    Also Mr Bushwhack Jack,,, a cousin is NOT second degree of kinship,, just FYI.

                    Always best to contact the local enforcement Officer for your area before you go, and both ask how they feel and to give them your intent before a contact situation arises.

                    Mr Bushwhack Jack,

                    Copied from the regulations.......



                    Guide information
                    Nonresidents who hunt brown bear, Dall sheep or mountain goats must be accompanied in the field by an Alaska- licensed guide or an Alaska resident 19 years or older who is within the second- degree of kindred. This means he or she, if not a registered guide, must be your: father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, spouse, grandparent, grandchild, brother/ sister-in-law, son/daughter-in-law, father/ mother-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepsister, stepbrother, stepson, or step- daughter.


                    Steve
                    Hey Stid,

                    I didn't realize that a cousin was not considered a second degree of kindred. That was my mistake. It surprises me though. I wonder if it is intentional or just a mistake that a cousin is not considered second degree of kindred. But, I am still sticking to my guns on the interpretation of whether or not he is required to have a general license. I realize it is okay to carry a gun for protection when it is not hunting season, but in this case it would be hunting season and the person involved would be participating in the hunting process. He may not be pulling the trigger, but he is still hunting with his cousin. At least that is my interpretation of the law. I guess we will have to have a trooper clarify the rules for us.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by 257wby View Post
                      Lying to an officer is never a good idea.
                      I never said anything about lying to an officer. I said that being accompanied by an armed non-res with a valid hunting license (even if only for a species of opportunity, not the primary prey species of the resident hunter) is potentially less problematic than one without any sort of license at all. Anyone that may accompany me in the field on a hunting trip armed will be hunting something- if only something for the pot.

                      Please don't construe anything I've said to include lying to a LEO.
                      "I do not deal in hypotheticals. The world, as it is, is vexing enough..." Col. Stonehill, True Grit

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I am seeing two different situations being mixed here when they probably need to be kept separate.

                        First situation - One person is hunting (and lets assume the hunt results in the taking of an animal) and a non-licenses person is accompanying them.

                        Second situation - Nobody is hunting, such as a camping trip where people are carrying weapons for protection (so there is no chance an animal is going to be taken unless a DLP situation) and one or all of the people don't have hunting licenses.

                        In the first situation, the accompanying person could be viewed as participating in the act of hunting if they are helping the "hunter" in any way, such as spotting, directing, stalking, calling, etc...

                        In the second situation, any non-licensed people could not be considered as participating in the act of hunting because there is no hunting occuring at all.

                        In my opinion, you have to consider those situations differently. If I was just heading out for a hike in the mountains, I would not expect to need a hunting license just because some animal may be in season and I am armed since I have no intention of doing any kind of hunting or participating in any hunting. If I am going with a friend who is hunting, then I could see the argument that any assistance I provide them could be viewed as the act of hunting (note hunting does not necessarily equate to shooting or killing and animal, just the process by which that can be the end result) and I would be best to have a hunting license even if I am not planning to or elegible to pull the trigger.

                        Just my opinion on it.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bushwhack Jack View Post
                          Hey Stid,

                          I didn't realize that a cousin was not considered a second degree of kindred. That was my mistake. It surprises me though. I wonder if it is intentional or just a mistake that a cousin is not considered second degree of kindred. But, I am still sticking to my guns on the interpretation of whether or not he is required to have a general license. I realize it is okay to carry a gun for protection when it is not hunting season, but in this case it would be hunting season and the person involved would be participating in the hunting process. He may not be pulling the trigger, but he is still hunting with his cousin. At least that is my interpretation of the law. I guess we will have to have a trooper clarify the rules for us.
                          Ahh, but when isn't it hunting season? By your definition, nobody could go camping in unit 20 in the spring with out having a hunting license (it's bear season). Nobody could go camping in unit 20 in the summer without a hunting license (it's still bear season). Nobody could go camping in the fall without a hunting license...well you get the point. This is no different than having someone without a drivers license holding a set of car keys. Nothing inherently illegal about it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Frostbitten, I like the sentiment, "Ahh, but when isn't it hunting season?"

                            I am almost always hunting when I am in the field --tracking, watching behavior, glassing. I do not always intend to shoot.

                            This is somewhat personal for me. A couple of years ago I was on a family, horseback hunting trip in a Montana wilderness area. I did not have a tag or a hunting license, as I was not actively hunting or intending to shoot game. I was stopped by a federal LEO. He tried to suggest that I was illegally hunting. I was polite, and answered his questions. I also let him know in no uncertain terms that I was not going to be deprived of my right to carry a gun, or intimidated by the possibility of false charges. I let him know I would fight any ticket or fine suggesting I was illegally hunting. I rode off without a ticket and my rifle still in its scabbard.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by anchskier View Post
                              I am seeing two different situations being mixed here when they probably need to be kept separate.

                              First situation - One person is hunting (and lets assume the hunt results in the taking of an animal) and a non-licenses person is accompanying them.

                              Second situation - Nobody is hunting, such as a camping trip where people are carrying weapons for protection (so there is no chance an animal is going to be taken unless a DLP situation) and one or all of the people don't have hunting licenses.

                              In the first situation, the accompanying person could be viewed as participating in the act of hunting if they are helping the "hunter" in any way, such as spotting, directing, stalking, calling, etc...

                              In the second situation, any non-licensed people could not be considered as participating in the act of hunting because there is no hunting occuring at all.

                              In my opinion, you have to consider those situations differently. If I was just heading out for a hike in the mountains, I would not expect to need a hunting license just because some animal may be in season and I am armed since I have no intention of doing any kind of hunting or participating in any hunting. If I am going with a friend who is hunting, then I could see the argument that any assistance I provide them could be viewed as the act of hunting (note hunting does not necessarily equate to shooting or killing and animal, just the process by which that can be the end result) and I would be best to have a hunting license even if I am not planning to or elegible to pull the trigger.

                              Just my opinion on it.
                              Good point and I agree that the two situations are inherently different. My opinion, practice and response to any LEO is that I'm "camping" unless I have meat hanging or standing over a dead animal that was not DLP. I'm am done being "checked" by LEO just because I'm in an area where others are "hunting." If the LEO asks me what I'm doing and I say, "I'm hunting Nelchina Caribou." Then the LEO has every right to check my tags and license. If I don't have the proper tags or license and no animal has been "harvested" then the LEO's responsibility is to warn me that I do not have the proper documentation to "hunt" Nelchina caribou. But there is no way he can cite me for "hunting" illegally. Same applies for non-resident friends/family in camp with you. They do not have to have any kind of license and do not have to identify themselves unless they are engaged in an activity that requires said documentation. Merely being physically present and/or looking through binos, pointing out game, holding a hide, picking up a quarter is not "hunting." There is no law that says once I'm "hunting" I have to remain "hunting" till I leave the field. One day I'm "hunting" the next day I'm "camping." Depending on where I am I may be "panning for gold" or "fishing."

                              Like I said, very interesting read, but bottom line for me is until I pull the trigger, or have evidence of a kill in my camp or in the field. LEO can just stop by and have some coffee.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 1S1K View Post
                                If the LEO asks me what I'm doing and I say, "I'm hunting Nelchina Caribou." Then the LEO has every right to check my tags and license. If I don't have the proper tags or license and no animal has been "harvested" then the LEO's responsibility is to warn me that I do not have the proper documentation to "hunt" Nelchina caribou. But there is no way he can cite me for "hunting" illegally .
                                I don't believe there is any statute requiring LEO to advise you that you don't have the correct tags etc. That LEO can look at your stuff and just say thank you and leave. He can then come back later when you have a caribou and write you up.

                                Not all officers would do this, but it would be the same as watching a duck hunter shoot too many ducks. The officer could stop the hunter after one duck over the limit (an infraction has been committed) but they wait until sunset to let them shoot more and get a bigger ticket. It's not about the wildlife, it's about bigger fines. Had they written the ticket after the first duck over the limit there would be more ducks for us folks who follow the rules.

                                Comment

                                Footer Adsense

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X