"Accompaning" On A Bear HUnt

[Iron Glove]

Son called the other day, he had been out and about looking for bear signs. Told him I'd be at the Cabin soon, look forward to seeing him then I thought "Maybe I'll join him on a bear hunt." I don't hunt bear, don't like the taste but figured it would be fun to be with him, adds another body for the grunt work and provides an extra shooter if a problem occurs.
Had to renew my Hunter's Lisc on line which involved providing new "credentials" but I managed to work my way through it.
Then I wondered "If I go with him, carrying a rifle but with no intent on shooting a bear, should I have a tag?"
Hmm.
Check the Regs. "Hunting" is defined as " …...shooting at, attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, following after ……..whether or not the wildlife is then or subsequently wounded, killed …………. while in the possession of a firearm."
Oh well, bought a bear tag.

[DeepJeep]

Good call. .

[Ron.C]

Agree, best thing to do is to cover your butt. And for a $20 tag, pretty cheap way to avoid any issue.

[whognu]

Son called the other day, he had been out and about looking for bear signs. Told him I'd be at the Cabin soon, look forward to seeing him then I thought "Maybe I'll join him on a bear hunt." I don't hunt bear, don't like the taste but figured it would be fun to be with him, adds another body for the grunt work and provides an extra shooter if a problem occurs.
Had to renew my Hunter's Lisc on line which involved providing new "credentials" but I managed to work my way through it.
Then I wondered "If I go with him, carrying a rifle but with no intent on shooting a bear, should I have a tag?"

mm.
Check the Regs. "Hunting" is defined as " …...shooting at, attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, following after ……..whether or not the wildlife is then or subsequently wounded, killed …………. while in the possession of a firearm."
Oh well, bought a bear tag.

no no no............

wildlife officer "are you hunting?"

you, the crusty veteran "yes, i'm hunting wolves....seen any"?

end of discussion

xo

[browningboy]

no no no............

wildlife officer "are you hunting?"

you, the crusty veteran "yes, i'm hunting wolves....seen any"?

end of discussion

xo

This is what I would say, totally legal and no worries... IG said if he didn't he would be poaching but thats far from the truth, you said you're not shooting or hunting a bear yourself so pretty clear to me! Go enjoy!

[Iron Glove]

This is what I would say, totally legal and no worries... IG said if he didn't he would be poaching but thats far from the truth, you said you're not shooting or hunting a bear yourself so pretty clear to me! Go enjoy!

My point was that if you breach any hunting regs then you are "hunting" illegally. To me, "hunting illegally", be it using another person's tag, whatever is "poaching" aka "Hunting illegally. The definition of "hunting" in the Regs is very clear, what I would be doing, i.e. tracking, looking for a bear while carrying a rifle is "hunting." The regs don't deal with intent. I don't want to be out there and a CO hassles us so the $20 tag is money well spent. And who knows, just might shoot a bear.

[whitlers]

My point was that if you breach any hunting regs then you are "hunting" illegally. To me, "hunting illegally", be it using another person's tag, whatever is "poaching" aka "Hunting illegally. The definition of "hunting" in the Regs is very clear, what I would be doing, i.e. tracking, looking for a bear while carrying a rifle is "hunting." The regs don't deal with intent. I don't want to be out there and a CO hassles us so the $20 tag is money well spent. And who knows, just might shoot a bear.

I agree and disagree with this. What if you draw a goat tag and you bring a hunting partner who has a rifle incase you see a nice alpine buck on the way up to goat country or a wolf etc. He doesn't need a goat tag and he will be helping you search for, persue and carry the goat out. In your logic he then also needs a goat tag? I doubt any CO would have a problem with that but I do see what you are saying with regards to what the regs actually say.

[Salty]

I agree and disagree with this. What if you draw a goat tag and you bring a hunting partner who has a rifle incase you see a nice alpine buck on the way up to goat country or a wolf etc. He doesn't need a goat tag and he will be helping you search for, persue and carry the goat out. In your logic he then also needs a goat tag? I doubt any CO would have a problem with that but I do see what you are saying with regards to what the regs actually say.

Totally different scenario that GOS. But I'm sure they'd pack a deer tag right?

[Walking Buffalo]

My point was that if you breach any hunting regs then you are "hunting" illegally. To me, "hunting illegally", be it using another person's tag, whatever is "poaching" aka "Hunting illegally. The definition of "hunting" in the Regs is very clear, what I would be doing, i.e. tracking, looking for a bear while carrying a rifle is "hunting." The regs don't deal with intent. I don't want to be out there and a CO hassles us so the $20 tag is money well spent. And who knows, just might shoot a bear.

Regs don't deal with intent?

This is where your wrong. Mens rea Man!


Some regulations are written intentionally broad, with an intent to be enforced narrowly.

If we were to follow your logic, think of all the little kids hunting illegally with their parents.

You bought a tag, great. But you didn't have to, legally....

[Iron Glove]

Regs don't deal with intent?

This is where your wrong. Mens rea Man!
Some regulations are written intentionally broad, with an intent to be enforced narrowly.
If we were to follow your logic, think of all the little kids hunting illegally with their parents.
You bought a tag, great. But you didn't have to, legally....

Would mens rea apply - it's your duty and obligation to know the Regs when you go hunting, saying you had no intent might not cut it.
Ignorance may be bliss but it's not a get out of jail free card.
I agree that the Regs are vague, whether it's deliberate or not is arguable.
Ultimately, better safe than sorry.