Assisting in the taking of deer

[BobT]

Every year our company Health and Wellness committee puts together a short lunch-time seminar promoting hunter safety for the upcoming firearms deer season. They invited a couple local CO's to share the latest changes in the law, promote safe hunting, and answer questions we may have.

At noon today I had opportunity to inquire about a topic we had been discussing on this site a while back and get their opinion.

I asked the following question.

"Regarding the rules about assisting with the taking of deer, if I am licensed to take deer by firearms and my wife is not licensed but she accompanies me in my deerstand, would that fall under the definition of “assisting?” Both CO’s replied with the same answer. They said they would not be concerned about splitting hairs this way and would not view this situation as assisting. They believe that the intent of the law is that unlicensed hunters aren’t out driving deer for hunters but sitting in the stand or even walking along beside me in the woods such as going to and from the stand would not be considered assisting in their opinion.

Just thought I’d pass this along.

Oops. I posted this in the wrong forum. If the moderators would be so kind as to move this to the Deer Hunting forum I’d appreciate it, unless you feel it is better to leave it here.

[Musky Buck]

Cmon Bob we know your wife has been at least half the reason you've bagged so many deer, just kidding good luck in 7 days !

[Powerstroke]

I think this is a great definition and one that shows most CO's are going to be understanding in promoting the sport.

I think it also goes to show you that it is another occasion where the only way you get a ticket is by pushing the rule to the limit or talk your way into a ticket.

[Powerstroke]

I think this is a great definition and one that shows most CO's are going to be understanding in promoting the sport.

I think it also goes to show you that it is another occasion where the only way you get a ticket is by pushing the rule to the limit or talk your way into a ticket.

[BobT]

Cmon Bob we know your wife has been at least half the reason you've bagged so many deer, just kidding good luck in 7 days !

It has been suggested that having her wear that deer costume might be pushing things over the top a bit.

[harvey lee]

I asked an area CO about this only with my wife walking along pheasant hunting. My wife thought she would simply walk along on a nice sunny afternoon.

The CO told me that more than likely it would be a ticket for assisting if she walked along without purchasing a license. I said that seems crazy as my english pointer does more assisting than my wife but he said she would be assisting in the flush.

I called St Paul then and asked the same question and they told me, more than likely a tickect for assisting in the flush. St Paul DNR told me it is typically left up to the decression of the Co that makes the stop.

She does not walk along with me now as I am not going to take the chance I get stopped by a CO in a poor mood or one who is stictly by the book.

So i would take that to mean a wife or another person can sit and watch but cannot walk along in the field.

[BobT]

I could see how pheasant hunting might be viewed differently. I could also see how it may be different if you are working deer on a drive such as in farm country.

I also forgot to mention that in the meeting someone else expanded on my question and asked about a non-licensed hunter helping you drag out a deer or track a wounded deer and they did not have a problem with this either.

One catch that they were quite adamant about. The non-licensed hunter better not be caught with a firearm or bow in their possession. Even if they're just holding it, they could be inviting trouble. Something to keep in mind.

[harvey lee]

And have orange on when they are helping drag the deer.

[nonteepical]

i think it is going to hinge on the co's mood, someone could be sitting in the stand with you unliscenced, and could say "there's a buck" and the actual hunter didn't see it, thats assisting.

our moose orientation a couple years ago they said anyone not on the liscence couldn't help (assist) paddling a canoe, help(assist) carring any equipment, look (assist) at a map deciding where to go ect. ect. They only can assist after the animal is dead, when the animal is dead the hunt is over.

[InTheNorthwoods]

This thread just shows that common sense is nearly extinct. It also shows that CO's can use game laws to have excessive reach, as there is no legal basis for citing individuals who are doing nothing but going for a walk in the field (pheasant hunting) or taking in a nice sit in the woods (sitting in a stand). It is all based on intent, and quite frankly, I think common sense would show that a wife who likes to watch the dogs work or who enjoys sitting in the woods watching is not intending on influencing the hunt and that in many cases, it might be an impediment. It is ridiculous how little common sense is present in some situations and how silly some game laws can be interpreted.

*Edit - I acknowledge there is a law prohibiting assisting in a hunt without a license, however, my point is simply that without intent to assist, being afield is not a crime.

[Cheetah]

The same CO who says in a lecture he would let you off with a warning will probably be the same one to write you a ticket in the field and impound your gun so they can use it for "evidence".

[BobT]

The same CO who says in a lecture he would let you off with a warning will probably be the same one to write you a ticket in the field and impound your gun so they can use it for "evidence".

Got a burr under your saddle for LEO's eh?

[heat checker]

I sent an email to the DNR asking if it was legal for my 9yr old to bring bow along for small game while I am bowhunting or slug hunting. Their response was yes, while I was bowhunting, but not firearms. So I posed the question if it was then legal for him to sit on stand by me with a rimfire while I was firearms hunting. Their response was yes, as long as he doesn't participate in any drives, or assist taking deer. Makes me nervous, but thats what I'm going with.

[Red Miller]

We have this discussion every year and in my opinion, the law needs to be rewritten. If the law is so vague that it becomes discretionary on the part of the CO as to whether or not you have violated, there is something wrong. If there is a citation, fine, confiscation, ruined hunt, etc. at stake, the law needs to be crystal clear or get rid of it all together. I will take either option gladly. I just want to know where that line is at all times.

[BobT]

We have this discussion every year and in my opinion, the law needs to be rewritten. If the law is so vague that it becomes discretionary on the part of the CO as to whether or not you have violated, there is something wrong. If there is a citation, fine, confiscation, ruined hunt, etc. at stake, the law needs to be crystal clear or get rid of it all together. I will take either option gladly. I just want know where that line is at all times.

I agree with you about clarifying the law but you are overlooking one thing. Law enforcement only issues citations according to what they interpret to be violations of the law. Every law is up for debate and interpretation. That's why we have prosecution, defense, judges, and juries. The attorneys argue their position before a judge and jury. The judge and/or jury then have the task of interpreting the laws accordingly.

So, an officer witnesses what he/she believes is a violation of the law as they understand the law. They issue a citation or make an arrest. The alleged defendant appears before a court of law where he presents his defense against the state’s accusation. The attorneys for both side present their evidence and arguments and the jury or judge are the ones that makes a final determination based on the evidence presented and their knowledge and understanding of the law.

[Red Miller]

I do understand due process and I respect the fact that we are afforded that privilege in this great country. As for my point of view as a sportsman, I dont want to have to deal with any part of any of that. I just want to enjoy my outdoor experiences and not have to worry about whether I am doing something wrong because of some ambiguity in the rule book. I respect the laws, they are there for a reason. Its only fair that we all know the rules and that they are written in a way that is easy for everyone to understand. If they would only spend as much time writing the game laws as they do the tax codes...