Does my wife need a license?

[ATM]

Wow, I have not checked this post for awhile. Bob nice comparison, crack to walking the field I like it. As far as your e-mail, who responded a CO or some office junkie in St. Paul. I know several CO's from former jobs and training we,ve had together and I will continue to bring my wife, no license needed, she will also sit unarmed in my duck blind and deer stand as well. The nice part about working in Law enforcement is the officers have discrestion and I a confident that if they watched us in the field they would determine that my wife is not assisting in taking game. Adam

[chub]

Even if you only have one gun between the two of you, you could tell the CO that she shot the first 3 and you shot the last three, unless they've witnessed otherwise---

If one goes with the party hunting idea, and the other person aiding and assisting the hunt, whether they have have a gun or not, if they are considered part of the "party" by the law, why would they need a gun?

If she doesn't want to shoot, skip the license, bring her with and have fun. On the one in ten million chance you'd run into Superjerk the CO, it would be tossed out of court so fast it would make your head spin.

[Tom7227]

I've checked out the regs on this & she will need a license. Anyone out in the field w/ you will need a license,whether they're walking,crawling,rolling,complaining,or what have you,they are aiding in taking game as in a drive & need to be licensed if carrying a weapon or not.

I know it's not fare,but wear do you draw the line? My wife would like to see our Britt work but doesen't want to kill the bird!!

Ya I know, I'm work'n on it!!

I have looked through the regs and I don't see that a person needs a license if all they are doing is accompanying a hunter. I think there's a special reg for turkey hunting that may require it but I don't think that's the case for most others. Do you know where you got the info about the need for a license?

[BobT]

All I can find is a statement that it is not permitted to assist in the hunt. Unfortunately "assist" is not defined. Based on this discussion thread, perhaps it should be defined.

Personally, I would rather not try to define it my own way and hope that the case is thrown out of court. The hassle and potential expense of defending my actions should a CO disagree with my opinion of the law is just not worth it.

I'd buy the license and avoid the hassle.

Bob

[Tom7227]

I believe so as she'd be "assisting you" which is part of the definition of "taking" game. She's walking and could be pushing or flushing birds so she's assisting as I understand the law. Only way she wouldn't be is if she walks behind you I think.

Lawdog -

How about a westlaw search for a definition of assist as it relates to the issue of hunting?

For my 2 cents I think it wouldn't be a particularly tough case to win unless there were some really overt acts of working in some fashion to move game. If the wife came out and helped build the deer stand she'd be assiting the hunt as well.

An example - I am deer hunting and someone walks through the area intent on watching birds, taking photos or whatever. They are probably moving game and to that extent they are assisting me - perhaps even unknowingly.

I think a jury would have a tough time coming up with a guilty verdict.

[brittman]

Making it to difficult. No gun no need for a license.

I have never, ever heard of someones wife or girl friend being arrested for assisting without a license.

[lawdog]

Tom7227,

No westlaw search needed, just look at the statutes. Taking is defined in Minn Stat §97A.015 Subd 47 as:

"Taking" means pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring, angling, spearing, or netting wild animals, or placing, setting, drawing, or using a net, trap, or other device to take wild animals. Taking includes attempting to take wild animals, and assisting another person in taking wild animals. (emphasis added by me)

Walking with and making drives is considered assisting another person. Also if an unlicensed person sits with you in a blind and helps you spot game to shoot or call game, they have assisted you to take that animal (leaving aside turkey for now). I've had several cases that involved this definition as a matter of fact.

Everyone here so boldy declaring how they know a ticket for this would be dumped, knows nothing about what they are talking about. You can't say what a court will do with anything, however the law is clear that this is a ticketable act. Whether or not a CO would issue such a ticket is an open question and would be based on a lot of factors in their discretion, but they could and a court would not dump it automatically. If the court believed you are assisting, you will lose as that's the law. Anyone "taking" needs a license.

[chub]

"Taking" means pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring, angling, spearing, or netting wild animals, or placing, setting, drawing, or using a net, trap, or other device to take wild animals. Taking includes attempting to take wild animals, and assisting another person in taking wild animals. (emphasis added by me)

Walking with and making drives is considered assisting another person. Also if an unlicensed person sits with you in a blind and helps you spot game to shoot or call game, they have assisted you to take that animal (leaving aside turkey for now). I've had several cases that involved this definition as a matter of fact.

So by using your opinions and legal judgement, if I am hunting game that is legal to take in a party hunt situation, I would be within the law to take that other persons limit of game as they are assisting in the hunt, whether they have the means(firearm), to take their own limit or not, correct.

So if I spent 40 additional dollars(or whatever the lic price is), and got my girlfriend and her best friend to accompany me into the field, put one on each side of me and marched the cattails, I could legally shoot 9 Roosters today?

What would you do in this situation, being an LEO and coming across this situation?

It appears a case needs to see the courts in order to address the way this law or rule is worded.

Your interpretation of assisting is as asnine as mine, about shooting three limits of birds. an unlicensed person using a game call, or obviously beating the brush attempting to flush birds, I would agree whole heartedly is assisting the hunt. Or that person walking towards a posted hunter on the end of a small slough... . That same person running a camera, or just along for the exercise and fresh air, two feet to your left or right, or behind you, should have nothing to worry about in a legal sense from any rational CO.

Still, an interesting topic.

[lawdog]

So by using your opinions and legal judgement, if I am hunting game that is legal to take in a party hunt situation, I would be within the law to take that other persons limit of game as they are assisting in the hunt, whether they have the means(firearm), to take their own limit or not, correct.

[schr0563]

Simply buying the license to avoid a ticket may not be as easy as most have suggested. My wife is 27, therefore requiring a gun safety certificate to buy a license (I believe the cutoff is born after 1979 or 1980). There is no way she will sit through a class to get a certificate she will never use. She just wants to go for a walk and watch our dog at work.

One option is the apprentice license, but this only buys her 1 year.

All things considered we do what Brittman said. Go to the game farm.

That said here is the easy answer: GO TO A GAME FARM. She will see many points and good dog work in a controlled environment.

[chub]

I gave you no interpretation from me of assisting, I simply told you what the statute says and how it has been interpreted through the years by CO's and the courts alike. If you think the law is asinine, then try to change it, don't just tell people to violate it and a judge will throw it out. You don't get to decide the law of hte land unless you are a Supreme Court Justice or a Legislator which you are obviously neither. That's irresponsible and factually innacurate and absolutely horrible advice to give someone.

[BobT]

If she wants to walk along to watch the dog work, take her and the dog out but leave your shotgun at home. You don't have to take the game.

Bob

[dan z]

this even is true when waterfowl hunting if your settting up decoys or calling in ne way its illegal unless you have your lisc. even if they help you by paddling the boat its still assisting need a lisc.

[jigging-matt]

I think the cost of the license is far cheaper that the cost of a ticket. I also thought no to the license when I first read the post, but after reading the posts, and the regs and giving it a little thought. Common sense would tell you to buy the license and avoid any confrontation. If you really think that you need to get you limit for both licenses, more power to you. It is not always about "getting your limit", at least for me. I am just as happy if the dog has a good day and points lots of birds. Have had days where I saw almost all hens, but really enjoyed the day.

[brittman]

This statue is silly if not stupid ...

I say bring it on!

Come and get me on this one. I urge everyone to get out there and bring your wife or girlfriend. Maybe one CO will be low enough on the quota to be a fool to write the ticket.

If the case is not laughed out of court, maybe it will get enough press to rewrite the statue for upland game.

Hey it won't even blemish my spotless record of no violations (net positive if you count TIP call ins) ... my wife will get the ticket

[Lunger]

I'm with you on this one brittman, no dang way I would ever buy a license for my wife so she could walk 10 feet behind me and observe on a pheasant hunt. If a CO were to write me a ticket I would enjoy the trip to the courtroom. Think about it guys, she's walking 10 feet behind you doing nothing to help in the taking of a pheasant....grow a set and go hunting, oh and don't forget your wife!

[muc33]

Guys and Gals, we can discuss this like adults and not get to drawn up in drama. The law is the law, if you chose to not follow it, be prepared to pay the consiquences. The choice is yours. Us talking about who can or who will is just back door talk. The law states something, you have the option to follow or not. Lets keep the talk straight on this subject without all the large chesting going on. I don't want to have to lock this thread because we can't simply discuss without getting too off track. Thanks crew!

[brittman]

Muc33 ... Some laws are meant to be challenged. Especially poorly worded or written laws.

Just ask your average African American about many of the separate but equal laws in the 1960s.

Are there not many laws that were changed because someone chose to stand-up to them. While this law pales in significance compared to what these people faced 40 years ago... can work it the same way.

I will take a different approach. I plan to send a letter to my MN representative asking that his law be removed for upland game.

[muc33]

I by no means am trying to "shut someone up" I am just saying that in this forum, the "I say" or "let em try" type of stuff has no place here.

What you have stated in your last line about calling or writing your state rep is the proper procedure.

The problem with this type of discussion in here is assuming someone's type written text is a for or against comment. Hard to decypher. And no matter what the thought is, us talking about it isn't going to do much more than stir the pot. That is all I am saying. I applaud you for your intension of sending a letter. Please let us know brittman if you get a response, I would love to hear what they have to say. Good luck and great hunting!

[LightningBG]

Personally, I wouldn't buy a license. Just like I wouldn't be able to buy a license for my young children. Here's a scenario, what if you were argue that she was actually harming your pursuit (being the opposite of assisting), by never being quiet and ruining your concentration?

[LightningBG]

Also, I have a buddy that is a camera man for an outdoors show. I'm sure that he's rustled up something at one point or another. Would that make his actions illegal?

[Jaspernuts]

I asked a DNR officer about this and its cut and dry. Anybody walking with pheasant hunting needs a liscense.

[muc33]

No one is preventing your children from hunting. I know many friends who bring thier youngsters along to hunt. It is up to you and those you hunt with to know that the child hunting with them has been taught proper gun safety and gun handling. If you are talking about the limitations of young children and big game hunting we have another topic then.

Again, lets keep this on the up and up crew. Thanks.

[hanso612]

I wrote about this same type of dihlema last deer season, when I asked if a party of deer hunters joins up with a party of pheasant hunters walking out of a wma. Does that imply that the pheasant hunters need to have a deer liscence? Both groups have a right to be there and neither has an obligation to hunt deer-but if a warden happens to pull up and checks liscenses the pheasant hunters will get the ticket not the deer hunters. This is inherantly unfair and a major problem with this type of law. i.e. The ticket goes to the party not needing to take the action.

The same situation happens when you the hunter head out the front door to hunt birds and run into the wife who was out on her jog and you walk back to the house together. Many farms are thousands of acres or adjacent to large tracts of public property so this scenario is not unrealistic and likely plays out all the time all over the northland. It seems very unfair that the wife needs to get a liscence to avoid a fine and worse -she is the one to get the ticket.

Imagine a boat party on an island on the St croix. A hunter shows up to set up for ducks of the back of his boat. Say many party goers on the beach are sitting by a campfire and the hunter is shooting passing birds. It would seem very unfair for all at the fire to have a liscence and even more rediculous for all of them to pay a fine.

This requires action of a participant not engaged in the activity, a situation that can't possible stand up in court.

My argument is that there is aburden of proof beyond "just being there" required of the ticketing officer to make the claim one is assisting -and if there isn't then the examples listed above are implied consequences and desperately in need of change.

More importantly the ticket goes to the wrong party. Hans

[BobT]

The opposite is equally troublesome.

So we change the law and allow "observers" to be in the area.

Joe deer hunter gathers up about a dozen friends to tag along and "observe" as he deer hunts. He gets the benefit of a drive for the cost of one deer license.

Same is true for pheasant hunting. Heck, I take our mutt dog with me when I go after pheasants. She has no clue at all what she's doing aside from having fun running around exploring the area. I take her along because it's one more body out there and maybe, just maybe, she'll flush a bird or two and it does work occasionally. I have been lucky that she has been able to actually help me on a couple occasions but I don't expect anything from her and my expectations are usually met. So if my friends didn't need to be licensed while assisting me perhaps I could gather a half-dozen of them to push the sloughs. Instead of bringing home one rooster that flushed, maybe I could bring home a limit.

Bob