Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. ?

Does my wife need a license?


Recommended Posts

Hans, I understand your points as well, but name me 5 times those fairy tale type situations pop up...i.e. wife on a jog who then wants to walk through 5 foot tall switch grass just because she loves me stuff. Come on. And who would walk for deer with pheasant hunter and vice versa without worrying about the CO showing up. Tell the truth. We have a law, it has been stated in here. Heck I don't like the fact that I can't burn leaves in a barrel in my yard because of a city ordinance but the fact that a half a mile from my house is out of city limits they can and I have nothing more than a field in front of my house. It really doesn't mattter, the situation nor the fact that it MAY happen somewhere else. PERIOD. It is law. If you don't like the law, dispute it through proper methods. Us tearing it apart in here with pseudo situations is rediculous. I have two different CO's who have commented about this and have made it quite clear. The law is the law. Why test it, with situational methods that can only cause controversy? Do it properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Muc, I hear you,and by no means am advocating breaking any laws. In fact I recomend buying a combination husband and wife sportsmans liscence and buying an extra small game for the wife. I also push my out of state friends who pheasant hunt with me to get duck stamps as well.

There is no better use of our conservation dollar than spending it on liscences. The money always goes to the right place.

I also try my best to follow the spirit of the posting rules for this forum and do my best not to stear people to do things that test limits.

Your doing a great job allowing free exchange of ideas while still preserving the rules of the forum by the way.

That said, the examples I picked are from real world examples I've seen in real life. My wife would no more hump through a cattail slough in Dec. than the man on the moon, but up north I know of many couples who take an evening stoll where the husband carries a shotgun for grouse and the wife goes for the walk. I also know farmers in your area that whack a few birds from the woodlot while the wife is out doing chores. I walk portage trails in the fall and have often met up with other hikers. I would much rather have them walk with me than ahead of me bumping all the birdsmand with my hip, there is no way I'm staying ahead of them. So, as you can see there are many real world examples of hunters and non hunters hooking up in the wild were it is clear the non hunters should not be required to get a liscence.

This season I saw many WMAs with adjacent landowners in stands or lined up on the perimiter of the WMA while pheasnt hunters from another party ran dogs through the WMAs.

As I sat on my stand on private property I often wished a group would hunt the WMA for pheasant next to me. Had a deer got up and ran across in front of me I have no moral problem taking it.

I do have a problem with a law that, has as a consequence, tickets being given to the pheasant hunters in the last example. If I choose to get off stand and walk over to them as they are finishing their drive and started asking them about the hunt just as the warden arives and catches us all together.

I know from reading posts of yours in the past, that you and I agree on following the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law. I take pride in knowing the laws and following them as I know you do too. I would hate for my words to be interpreted or used by someone trying to gain an advantage or avoid buying a liscence -to find and use a loophole in the law.

More than anything I'm pointing out the hypocracy of giving a ticket to the party that can't or shouldn't know better. The ticket should go to the deer hunter who has his buddies pheasant hunt or to the husband who has has his wife drive the truck to the other end of the ditch to pick him up. It shouldn't go to the non hunters.

The way the rule is set up the ticket goes to the party not gaining the advantage-which is just flat out wrong. Hans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaw in your argument hanso is that if your wife is running on the road she's not moving birds. If she walks through the grasses or off the trail then she's helping you. If someone is having a cmapfire on the other side of the island and you don't know them, they are obviously not helping you and they certainly aren't "afield" with you.

If pheasant hunters push deer towards you and it helps you, it doesn't mean they are doing a deer drive. If you call 5 friends and send them to pheasant hunt on an adjacent field and they push deer towards you, that would technically be illegal, but good luck. Someone would need to prove it.

Recognize the meanings of "afield" and "taking/assist". They are clearly defined by law.

The best part of the law is the fact that it is enforced by logical human beings with discretion. If a CO tickets you for breaking the law, they have to prove their case in court the same you have to defend yourself in court. You have the same chances as the CO.

I agree with lawdog that this situation is pretty cut and dried. NO one should encourage another to break the law purposely. This conversation should stay factual and logical. Wild hypothetical situations should be left at the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your words ring true and I put full trust in our CO's to make the right call. I agree with you on the wild hypothetical situations having a limited place in the practicle aplication of the laws, but sometimes they outline the nuances of a point. I tried to use real world examples above and in each case it was clear that most COs wouldn't give a ticket in each case. The arguments are sound, but they are what is called a "staw man" argument. Their persuasiveness is another matter altogehter,but I hope they made it clear by what I meant about the wrong party getting the ticket.

I see no harm in letting the spouse walk with the husband on their evening walk as long as they stay to one limit. In fact, I think it is preferable to the hunter who buys his spouse a liscence just so he or she can shoot an extra limit.

I see a big difference between a nightly walk with your spouse around the homestead section or down a dirt road in which a hunter happens to bring a gun in case a bird flushes -and a hunter who takes his spouse to the field or WMA to go for a hunt in which the spouse is used as another bird dog.

The intentions are't usually clear to all and regardless of whether or not you get a ticket you have to live with yourself at the end of the day. You know what your intentions are.

So back to the original question-does your spouse need a liscence? On a hiking trail around your property in the northwoods for grouse,I think the answer should be no-but might be maybe. In a WMA in SW MN it's crystal clear I think the answer is yes, but around the woodlot I'm not sure. I think there is still lots of grey areas worth exploring and it's not as cut and dry as you might think.

But all said, do your best to follow the spirit of the law too, and if you can afford it get the second liscence. Hans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am proposing a change for upland and waterfowl. Deer hunting in MN is a separate issue.

You can certainly write the rule that every licensed hunter can have a non-licensed, unarmed adult accompany them on any hunt for birds. I see know harm with them in the boat or blind either. The scenarios that BobT lists are as remotely possible as Hanso612's.

Let's switch over to turkey hunting in MN. The law was clear at one time. Must be licensed to accompany. This was changed. Now you can have someone along and help. I would argue that this had a significant and measurable increase in harvest.

Quote:
Assisting. A licensed wild turkey hunter may assist another turkey hunter, but may not shoot or tag a turkey for another hunter. An unlicensed adult age 18 or older may assist a licensed wild turkey hunter. The unlicensed adult may not shoot or possess a firearm or bow while assisting a hunter and may not charge a fee for the assistance.

Joel (Turkey Forum) alone has helped many successfully harvest a wild turkey. I have too. In this case the unarmed adult is playing a significant and real role ...

I think this is great as long as no one is getting paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see a situation where I am out at the farm hunting and run into the renter and stop to talk to him. I could have him walk with me to show him new plantings and prairie areas to stay out of at the end of crop rows so he doesn't turn around in my CRP. He might not even have on blaze orange.

I would like to still carry my gun just in case a bird gets up.

As the rule stands I could, but the renter could get in trouble for assisting/being in the field without blaze orange and hunting without a liscence for something I asked him to do. I should be the one to put the gun down or get a ticket.

I think most of us are honest law abiding hunters, but the rules are made to protect us from the few who take advantage. I think there are way more examples of these chance meetings than there are examples of hunters calling five of there buddies to come do a fake pheasant hunt drive. The pool of these whackers or beaters is small.

I would be in favor of a rule that allowed non gun carrying observers to be in the field without a liscense- especially non resident landowners on there own property.

It's a shame there are a few hunters who push the limits out there to ruin a perfectly good walk for the rest of us.Hans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Websters

Main Entry: 1as·sist

Pronunciation: \ə-ˈsist\

Function: verb

Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French assister to help, stand by, from Latin assistere, from ad- + sistere to cause to stand; akin to Latin stare to stand — more at stand

Date: 15th century

transitive verb

: to give usually supplementary support or aid to <assisted the boy with his lessons>

intransitive verb

1 : to give support or aid <assisted at the stove> <another surgeon assisted on the operation>

2 : to be present as a spectator <the ideal figures assisting at Italian holy scenes — Mary McCarthy>

Why would you put the warden in the position to have to decide what you are up too? As a officer we get lied to every day on almost every call or contact we have. We have to assume the worst, find the facts to back up our thoughts, then take action. The deer stand and duck blind are a different issue as the warden can see that person is not hunting and just observing. By walking off to one side or the other the "observer" opens the door to a bunch of questions.

Why would it be bad for your wife to walk slightly behind you as you hunt? Wouldn't that be the safest place for ANY observer plus that should take the guess work out of this question. What purpose would it serve to have her walking next to you, other than it might help flush some birds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As plain as it is written, YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO ABIDE BY THE LAW! If you give ANY officer reason to question the law which YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO ABIDE BY AND KNOW, you are placing yourself in danger of receiving a ticket. It is your job to follow the law. This law states no one with you unless they are licensed. As I said, I respect the fact that we all could think of a situation, or circumstance that "what if", but lets face it. I could see a situation where I win the lottery. My odds, well pretty slim, but hey, it's possible. That's why I CHOOSE TO PLAY. If you CHOOSE to not follow this law, you may get a ticket. We can't get it changed in here, that is all I am saying. We are getting to the point where the suggestions are questioning the rationality of CO's doing thier job. So after many efforts to prevent this, I will again say, if you don't like this wording of the law or don't like the law all together, write to your legislators, explain to them the possible word interpretations or possible scenarios. Ask them to get it changed, because they are the ones who can do it.

This all started out as a good honest question that turned to assumtion, and some negativity. We are all good people in here, I believe that, but this subject is going nowhere. Good luck in the field, be safe, and at least for the time being.... make sure your companions walking with you while hunting have proper licenses! Thanks crew!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.