Unlicensed Hunting Partner Questions

[popeshawnpaul]

I think you are right in some regard Bobcat.  If I believed you as a juror.  However, who goes out bear hunting with a gun but your not really bear hunting?  If you were the warden would you believe a guy that told you that?  I guarantee you get charged every time.  Maybe you find a juror that believes your story and hangs the jury...  It's like going into a bank with a gun and a ski mask.  While you didn't intend to rob the bank, who's going to believe you?

[billythekidrock]

  However, who goes out bear hunting with a gun but your not really bear hunting?  

Ooo.. Ooo..
I know.. I know...

[bobcat]

I don't think it would be hard to believe that a guy went bear hunting and took along a friend who is not a hunter, and the non-hunter assisted in carrying something, like an extra gun. It's not illegal to carry a gun in the woods, why is it illegal to carry a gun in the woods while in the company of a friend who has another gun and a bear tag/hunting license? Where is the law that says a guy is limited to only one gun while hunting? I have oftentimes thought that while hunting elk with a muzzleloader, that I may ask my hunting partner, who has already filled his tag, to carry his loaded muzzleloader along, so that he could hand me the gun if I needed a quick follow up shot. In that scenario do you think my hunting partner would/could be charged with hunting without a tag?  

[Curly]

I agree with Bobcat.  A guy should not be guilty of something he did not do.  What if two guys go out in August calling for bear and one guy has a bear tag and the other guy is there to shoot a coyote if one shows up.  It would suck for him to get ticketed for legally coyote hunting.  The bank robber analogy is good, but with the hunting scenario there are other things that the guy might be doing other than bear hunting and it might be believable............the guy with a ski mask and a gun, well what else would he be there for?

[Bscman]

Yeah I figured you'd have a reason why it wouldn't be kosher. But I don't see why the friend couldn't carry an extra gun to help the licensed hunter. Just because he's holding a gun doesn't mean he's hunting. Can't I go for a hike in the woods in August with no intent to look for bears and carry any gun I want? Isn't that a right covered by the 2nd amendment? What if I want to go hiking and carry a 44 mag on my belt? Does that mean I am bear hunting?

I asked a similar question to a WDFW officer last fall...
He cautioned me, stating the states definition of the word "hunting."

"To hunt" and its derivatives means an effort to kill, injure, capture, or harass a wild animal or wild bird."

If you're with a licensed hunter, in the field, actively pursuing bear with them, wearing camo/hunters orange, sitting while he's calling, aiding in a stalk, and you're carrying a loaded shotgun...you are hunting, by legal definition in the state of washington, whether you're the one pulling the trigger or not!

Do you really need a backup gun?
If so, you should probably consider wearing it on a sling, on your back, or in a holster on your person....or tell him to wait until next weekend, after he passes the class and gets his license!
Personally, I think one gun is enough...we're not talking about massive, aggressive grizzlies up north!

[edmondshunter]

All great points.  Pope your such a pesamist, I love it.  I'm actually gonna side with you on this one. 

My buddy is just accident prone so he's always over prepared.  I told him we didnt need a back-up, but he did have a valid point about how thick the brush is.  Wounded bear would be a bad sitch for all.  Im gonna check into the one time lic. thing.

[MichaelJ]

Well if they get caught then save this thread and you'll be good to go... lol 

Michael

[Timberstalker]

Hell he could just say he is hunting Sasquatch.  Aint no tag or license for them critters

[Houndhunter]

if hes old enough to carry a gun with out a hunting license i say have him carry one, but then again im 17

[popeshawnpaul]

I just have a sense as to what the law would do, and I think they would charge.  Would they convict?  Maybe not if you are as convincing as Bobcat.

I say if you want, go do it.  I call it "job security" and would love to argue the case.  I think I could win that case. 

By the way, my brother went hunting with me one time.  I had a deer tag and was hunting deer, and he just had a hunting license.  He informed the game warden he was just coyote hunting.  After being grilled for over an hour, the officer realized he didn't have probable cause and let him walk.  It was close and he was nearly in custody.  Was he doing anything illegal?  No.  But the presumption was he was hunting deer without a license.  Could he have been convicted?  Sure if the jury didn't believe him.  Could he have been found not guilty?  Sure if the jury believed him or thought the officer/prosecutor hadn't proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Do you get the jist?  There are a lot of innocent people that get found guilty every day for one reason or another. 

[billythekidrock]

Hell he could just say he is hunting Sasquatch.  Aint no tag or license for them critters

But isn't that against the law in some counties?

[Gutpile]

You don't have to wear orange in august anyways.
I wouldn't bring a gun if I were with a hunter and I wasn't licensed.

[Bscman]

By the way, my brother went hunting with me one time.  I had a deer tag and was hunting deer, and he just had a hunting license.  He informed the game warden he was just coyote hunting.  After being grilled for over an hour, the officer realized he didn't have probable cause and let him walk.  It was close and he was nearly in custody.  Was he doing anything illegal?  No.  But the presumption was he was hunting deer without a license.   

It's probably reasons like this that they changed the regs to state you cannot hunt with a .24+ caliber rifle during an open firearm deer or elk season, unless you have a deer/elk modern firearm, or bear tag.
Too many people out in the woods "coyote hunting" with .300win mags.

(I'm not calling you or your buddy a liar!!!)

[zackmioli]

very confusing situation. its true that many innocent people get charged and convicted everyday and that just shows the cracks in our judicial situation. but in my opinion pushing the boundaries in this case just isnt worth it.

[Curly]

I asked a similar question to a WDFW officer last fall...
He cautioned me, stating the states definition of the word "hunting."

"To hunt" and its derivatives means an effort to kill, injure, capture, or harass a wild animal or wild bird."

If you're with a licensed hunter, in the field, actively pursuing bear with them, wearing camo/hunters orange, sitting while he's calling, aiding in a stalk, and you're carrying a loaded shotgun...you are hunting, by legal definition in the state of washington, whether you're the one pulling the trigger or not!

I wouldn't want to test the law and end up in court either (unless I had a lot of money for lawyer fees).  But the way I read the definition of hunt, I don't see how you could say that the unlicensed guy with the gun is hunting unless he is trying to "kill, injure, capture, or harass a wild animal or wild bird" himself.  He is just keeping the hunter company and there to help pack meat if needed.  If he is carrying a gun for self protection, that is not really hunting.

But again, it probably wouldn't hold up in court.  Just like the muzzleloader scenario where a guy has someone carrying a backup rifle for the hunter to use for a followup shot if necessary...........the guy would most likely get a ticket and lose in court.