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

[swampdonkey]

I tried to post a question on the "Ask a Trooper" forum, but it wouldn't allow me too. So I'll try it hear.

It's my understanding that Alaska is one of the few states that allows people to carry firearms in the woods whether out with a buddy who's hunting or not, mainly for the "bear factor". I've yet to get a straight answer out of anyone regarding this particular topic to tell me that I'm mistaken. Even a few Troopers were a bit vague.

So, for example--- Here's a scenario- Say I've got my non-resident cousin from Wyoming visiting and he wants to accompany me on a moose hunt. He would like to carry a gun ONLY for potential bear problems. A Trooper shows up in camp, everyone's cordial, he checks licenses and whatnot and now, the Trooper possibly wants to charge him for hunting without a license. Is this possible or would my cousin be OK since he's more of a spectator??? Can or would anyone with any knowledge of this "situation" elaborate on this please. I don't want to put anyone (cousin or whomever) in a situation that could possibly avoided. Thanks for any input.

 

[FurFishGame]

I tried to post a question on the "Ask a Trooper" forum, but it wouldn't allow me too. So I'll try it hear.

It's my understanding that Alaska is one of the few states that allows people to carry firearms in the woods whether out with a buddy who's hunting or not, mainly for the "bear factor". I've yet to get a straight answer out of anyone regarding this particular topic to tell me that I'm mistaken. Even a few Troopers were a bit vague.

So, for example--- Here's a scenario- Say I've got my non-resident cousin from Wyoming visiting and he wants to accompany me on a moose hunt. He would like to carry a gun ONLY for potential bear problems. A Trooper shows up in camp, everyone's cordial, he checks licenses and whatnot and now, the Trooper possibly wants to charge him for hunting without a license. Is this possible or would my cousin be OK since he's more of a spectator??? Can or would anyone with any knowledge of this "situation" elaborate on this please. I don't want to put anyone (cousin or whomever) in a situation that could possibly avoided. Thanks for any input.

Speaking form the troopers point of view, how is he gonna know how the non resident isn't gonna shoot anything, accept a bear in the case of an attack ?

 

[Bushwhack Jack]

I would say technically he is required to have a general hunting license. He wouldn't be required to purchase a tag for any particular species, which is the most expensive part anyhow. The reason why I say this is because when I used to guide, they required guides to have a hunting license also. The reasoning was because even though the guide is not allowed to hunt while on a contract, technically he is hunting with the client. I would think the same reasoning would be applied in this situation. He may not necessarily be intending to shoot anything, but since he is accompanying you in the field on a hunt, he is hunting also. Now, here is the part that gets complicated. If, by some chance he does have an encounter with a bear, and he does feel the need to shoot it, then he is required by law to salvage the hide and skull and turn it in to fish and game. But, if he had a license and a bear tag (just in case), if he shot a problem bear, then he would be able to keep the hide and skull rather than turn it over to the state. I would advise just getting a license and tag. Look at the bright side, if he is your cousin, and you are a resident, he can hunt with you and shoot a grizzly bear without having to hire a guide since he is considered second degree of kindred. This alone saves him $10,000.

 

[chetharris]

Speaking form the troopers point of view, how is he gonna know how the non resident isn't gonna shoot anything, accept a bear in the case of an attack ?

Wait a minute, how do we know he is not out hunting people rather than defending himself. When did it become illegal for someone to openly cary a firearm in the woods? Really, we just accept the premise that because someone might be breaking the law they can not due a perfectly legal activity. I thought there was a presumption of innocence --innocent until proven guilty or some other meaningless rhetoric. I will cary a firearm in the woods with or without a hunting license so help me....


Chet Harris

 

[hodgeman]

I've hunted with a non-resident buddy tagging along... he was equipped with a non-res hunting license, no big game tags and a shotgun. It was a combination bear protection and ptarmigan of opportunity weapon.

I've always wondered about folks tagging along on hunts without a license and packing a rifle- about how that might play out if checked in the field. My guess is unless there is another seperate violation it would be a hard thing to make stick since they basically have to prove intent... but a non-res small game tag is a heck of a lot cheaper than the court costs associated would be.

 

[stid2677]

I would say technically he is required to have a general hunting license. He wouldn't be required to purchase a tag for any particular species, which is the most expensive part anyhow. The reason why I say this is because when I used to guide, they required guides to have a hunting license also. The reasoning was because even though the guide is not allowed to hunt while on a contract, technically he is hunting with the client. I would think the same reasoning would be applied in this situation. He may not necessarily be intending to shoot anything, but since he is accompanying you in the field on a hunt, he is hunting also. Now, here is the part that gets complicated. If, by some chance he does have an encounter with a bear, and he does feel the need to shoot it, then he is required by law to salvage the hide and skull and turn it in to fish and game. But, if he had a license and a bear tag (just in case), if he shot a problem bear, then he would be able to keep the hide and skull rather than turn it over to the state. I would advise just getting a license and tag. Look at the bright side, if he is your cousin, and you are a resident, he can hunt with you and shoot a grizzly bear without having to hire a guide since he is considered second degree of kindred. This alone saves him $10,000.

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

 

[Milo]

Speaking form the troopers point of view, how is he gonna know how the non resident isn't gonna shoot anything, accept a bear in the case of an attack ?

Same as on the streets of Anchorage - perfectly legal but how is the cop going to know you're not going to shoot anything

 

[Amigo Will]

Out of state fishermen don't need a hunting license to carry a shotgun while fishing. Now if he fired a stopping shot on game you shot first then F&G needs the money

 

[AGL4now]

If I hire a Packer for the season, he is going to carry a firearm. But He does NOT need a hunting license. He is not hunting, he is packing.

 

[stid2677]

If I hire a Packer for the season, he is going to carry a firearm. But He does NOT need a hunting license. He is not hunting, he is packing.

I have thought about hiring a packer but thought that it is not legal to provide support to hunters in the field without a guides license. I ask only because I have wanted to do this before and that is what my research yielded. Offered to pay for thier transportation into the field and was informed that all expenses have to be shared equally by each party or you are guiding.

Just asking???

Steve

 

[SuperCub]

I always wondered why you could take a "Mother-in-Law" hunting, but not a "Blood" Cousin... I'm thinking a "Mother-in-law" may have had something to do with how this Law was written. Just sayin....(grin)

 

[SuperCub]

I have thought about hiring a packer but thought that it is not legal to provide support to hunters in the field without a guides license. I ask only because I have wanted to do this before and that is what my research yielded. Offered to pay for thier transportation into the field and was informed that all expenses have to be shared equally by each party or you are guiding.

Just asking???

Steve

And it's also Illegal for you to pay a 12yr old kid down the street to mow your lawn. Child Labor laws,taxes, business license, liability,taxes,etc....

Let your conscience be your Guide...

 

[Grizzly Man]

:lol:

Let your conscience be your Guide...

Forget that!!! He charges WAY too much!!

 

[SuperCub]

:lol:

Forget that!!! He charges WAY too much!!

It's worth it!!! (grin)

 

[FurFishGame]

Wait a minute, how do we know he is not out hunting people rather than defending himself. When did it become illegal for someone to openly cary a firearm in the woods? Really, we just accept the premise that because someone might be breaking the law they can not due a perfectly legal activity. I thought there was a presumption of innocence --innocent until proven guilty or some other meaningless rhetoric. I will cary a firearm in the woods with or without a hunting license so help me....


Chet Harris

If you saw an out of stater in hte woods with a gun, would YOU think he was out just for giggles, and was happening to carry a shot gun? Now, if he had a fishing pole and was along a creek or lake or what not, that would be different, BUT, because he is with a resident, if I were a trooper, I would be skeptical....

I'm not saying swampdonkey is dishonest, but how is a trooper gonna know that the cousin isn't gonna shoot a moose on his resident buddys tag?

 

[Alaska_Lanche]

I have thought about hiring a packer but thought that it is not legal to provide support to hunters in the field without a guides license. I ask only because I have wanted to do this before and that is what my research yielded. Offered to pay for thier transportation into the field and was informed that all expenses have to be shared equally by each party or you are guiding.

Just asking???

Steve

What Stid???? You are looking to hire a replacement for me?? Bummer and here I thought I was doing good and all If our schedules align you know I am always willing to jump at the chance to go hunting even if it means I just don't pull the trigger. No need to hire a packer.

 

[BRWNBR]

i spoke with the troopers on a matter similar to this.

If i took someone on my trapline and they handed me wire for my set...they legally have to have a trapping license.

If someone helps me harvest a moose..ie pack it out or find it...they legally are suppose to have a hunting license.

As a guide its illegal for me to hunt big game with a client, but i legally have to have a hunting license, just because i'm not shooting doesn't mean i'm not participating in the act of hunting.

Fishing guides are suppose to have fishing licenses, they cannot fish, but must have a license because locating fish and transporting and supplying gear is part of fishing..they must legally have a fishing license.

I'm not sure how far back they run this reg...does a butcher have to have a hunting license, or a air taxi operator...got me.
does a buddy with you in the field with or without a gun...ya i'm gonna say the troopers big book will say they are suppose to.

I see this as a nuttso law that is not known well, possibly to be used as a tool to to manipulate testimony down the road if needed...theres alot of regulations and explainations that aren't in the book we get at wall mart..thats for sure.

 

[Grizzly Man]

If you saw an out of stater in hte woods with a gun, would YOU think he was out just for giggles, and was happening to carry a shot gun? Now, if he had a fishing pole and was along a creek or lake or what not, that would be different, BUT, because he is with a resident, if I were a trooper, I would be skeptical....

I'm not saying swampdonkey is dishonest, but how is a trooper gonna know that the cousin isn't gonna shoot a moose on his resident buddys tag?

The trooper is not going to know. BUT!!!! Can the trooper start writing tickets for something he might do?
I don't see why buddy would have to spend $85 for a non-resident license if he doesn't plan on shooting anything. If a person attacks me on the street in Anchorage, I can shoot them without having to buy a license

 

[SuperCub]

Once an Animal is "Rendered"(killed) to Possession Legally.. It's YOUR property! And responsibility.. Packers need to eat also...

 

[BRWNBR]

this i think fall under a little thing the troopers call "interpetation"..if they were there when it was shot they need to have a license is what i was told...if someone nets your fish...by the letter of the book they said you need to have a license...
seems pretty stinkin' messed up to me.

it is your property but you cannot kill another animal to protect it...so there is some discrepancy with the "property" definition.