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

[anchskier]

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.

 

[Frostbitten]

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.

 

[chetharris]

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.

 

[1S1K]

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.

 

[257wby]

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.

 

[Frostbitten]

Had they written the ticket after the first duck over the limit there would be more ducks for us folks who follow the rules.

In this situation, it's not LEOs fault there are "X" number of ducks no longer available to those who follow the rules, no matter when a ticket is written.

 

[1S1K]

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.

True, they do not have a duty to warn you of a possible violation. It is the responsibility of every hunter, fisherperson, and trapper to know the regs which control the activity you're participating in. Like I said, I and my non-res companions are "camping" until something dies.

 

[FurFishGame]

Simpler to produce the license and say- "I'm hunting moose and my buddy is hunting ptarmigan."

Hunting ptarmigan with a 375 (just an example, not saying his cousin would be using a 375) or a shotgun loaded up with 000 and slugs? I think not.

 

[SkinnyD]

I was going hunting (with my little boat in the back of the truck and a couple of bags of decoys). As I puttered down the highway, a trooper flagged me down to check my license. My hunting license. Is being on a highway (and in possession of a flat-bottomed boat and duck decoys) reason enough to check a hunting license? What would have happened if I hadn't produced the hunting license?

 

[Frostbitten]

I was going hunting (with my little boat in the back of the truck and a couple of bags of decoys). As I puttered down the highway, a trooper flagged me down to check my license. My hunting license. Is being on a highway (and in possession of a flat-bottomed boat and duck decoys) reason enough to check a hunting license? What would have happened if I hadn't produced the hunting license?

Probably nothing...on the spot, but had you not produced one, I would think the trooper may have made it a point to follow up on that.

 

[SkinnyD]

Seems like I could even unload the boat, put on waders, and get the dog out of the box before I was actually in need of a hunting license.

 

[Frostbitten]

Seems like I could even unload the boat, put on waders, and get the dog out of the box before I was actually in need of a hunting license.

I think you could too, but if he knew you didn't have one, he may just make it a point to visit you in your blind.

 

[J in AK]

Wayyyy too much mis-information floating around this thread....
A buddy of mine from the states has accompanied me on many sheep hunts, carrying a gun. Been checked by troopers many times, no big deal. I am the only person that can legally hunt a sheep, but that doesn't preclude him from legally being allowed to accompany me, and carry a rifle.

 

[1S1K]

I was going hunting (with my little boat in the back of the truck and a couple of bags of decoys). As I puttered down the highway, a trooper flagged me down to check my license. My hunting license. Is being on a highway (and in possession of a flat-bottomed boat and duck decoys) reason enough to check a hunting license? What would have happened if I hadn't produced the hunting license?

No. It is not reason enough to stopped you. Interestingly enough you said he "flagged" you down. If he had probably cause to stop you he would have used his lights which is an indication that you are being detained until released. I was a LEO in this state for 4.5 years so I know of what I speak. I have on multiple occassions pulled up next to, behind, or across from vehicles in pull-outs, did not turn my lights on and proceeded to contact the individuals. You will be amazed at what you can find out just by asking. In some cases, I went back to my vehicle turned the lights on and now we are in detained situation. Other times, everything was okay, people were fine, and I've even been told to pound sand when I ASKED for ID. OMG! I know a LEO being told NO. You win some you loose some.

Based on my LEO experience in this state you did not have to show the officer jack donkey, unless he was stopping you for a violation.

 

[1S1K]

To be clear there are instances when LEO can contact you, detain you and require you to provide documentation without there being a violation. For example, being out in a boat on PWS or Big Lake. You can be boarded and inspected and you should comply.

Also, driving down Denali Hwy, with antlers sticking out of your truck you can be stopped and checked by Fish and Game. Driving down the Parks Hwy with no visible evidence of a harvested animal but towing wheelers is a tough one. If you are pulled over, I would expect everyone to be honest, and if you have a harvested animal in the back then show the proper documents. If you don't, then I don't think you need to show the officer anything and he should let you on you're way, unless he/she can articulate that your lying, or there was some other kind of vehicle or moving violation for which you were stopped.

 

[swampdonkey]

Quite a thread I've started. Remember that this was a scenario, this NEVER happened.
Still, has anyone seen or read any type of official regulation/law on this? Or is it all just speculation and left completely up to Trooper interpretation? Lots of ideas and theories here, and some very valid points. If my "cousin" were actually in this situation, I think it would appear that the first answer my "cousin" gives the Trooper if asked in the field, could define the outcome of the situation, also set the mood if you will. Be polite and courteous, answer all questions asked and go from there. Walking around in the woods with bear protection is not illegal, regardless of why he's in the woods OR who you are OR where you're from..Correct me if I'm wrong. He'd have no intentions of harvesting a moose or any game, strictly DLP.
I can see from a LEO point of view too that if he were to walk up on 2 guys field dressing a moose in September, that his mind set would possibly be, "ah, 2 hunters, I'd better go check their documentation". That's the cops assumption, not mine. He might not get an answer he's potentially expecting, but hopefully he/she is understanding and can see a situation for what it is. Who knows....

 

[Bushwhack Jack]

Quite a thread I've started. Remember that this was a scenario, this NEVER happened.
Still, has anyone seen or read any type of official regulation/law on this? Or is it all just speculation and left completely up to Trooper interpretation? Lots of ideas and theories here, and some very valid points. If my "cousin" were actually in this situation, I think it would appear that the first answer my "cousin" gives the Trooper if asked in the field, could define the outcome of the situation, also set the mood if you will. Be polite and courteous, answer all questions asked and go from there. Walking around in the woods with bear protection is not illegal, regardless of why he's in the woods OR who you are OR where you're from..Correct me if I'm wrong. He'd have no intentions of harvesting a moose or any game, strictly DLP.
I can see from a LEO point of view too that if he were to walk up on 2 guys field dressing a moose in September, that his mind set would possibly be, "ah, 2 hunters, I'd better go check their documentation". That's the cops assumption, not mine. He might not get an answer he's potentially expecting, but hopefully he/she is understanding and can see a situation for what it is. Who knows....

Your last sentence just about summed it up. It probably depends on who the officer is and what his attitude is on the particular day. If he wanted to cite you, he probably could, and yes you could fight it in a court of law but is it really worth all the hassle. If on the other hand you ran into a nice guy, he might just give you a warning and say "I see no clear violation here, but next time be sure to have a license etc." If it were me, I think I would just buy the license to be safe. If nothing else it will give you a sense of peace that your intentions are pure. Just my 2 cents.

 

[AKBighorn]

Every time that we have encountered a LEO with a moose in our possession they have asked who was the lucky individual. That was the only person that any of them asked for a license and tag. The remainder of the group they simply chatted with and wished us luck.

Other times we have chatted with LEO's in the field they may or may not ask for license or tags, never one issue.

Now say your buddy is packing a high power rifle and has a hunting license because you thought you were cya and no moose tag how would you explain that your not hunting? Apparently you thought it was important enough to have a license so there is intent to hunt in itself!!! Now you have no moose tag, how's that going to go over? I think this has been blown completely out of proportion and by purchasing a license you didn't get the so called insurance you thought! Protect your right to keep and bear arms.

 

[BRWNBR]

i think its been touched on. depends on the trooper. i know i've talked with the head trooper and asked him questions and he's had to look them up in the big book before getting back with me, because he didn't know.
example, he's never checked someone trapping rabbits to see if they had a hunting license....never checked, don't care...but it is a regulation. i think there is alot that we don't know and i think there are many laws that the troopes won't enforce or pull outa the archives unless they need the ammo for a particular case.
i do know one thing...
i've learned stuff talking with troopers about the law that i wish i didn't know.

 

[tyrex13]

To those who say your parter needs a license. Does he also need a sheep tag when you draw a sheep permit and he is going with you to help harvest your sheep? If my wife draws a moose permit, I need to have a hunting license to go with her to pack out what she shoots. I'm thinking no to both my scenarios and therefore no to the OP's scenario as well.