Can of worms!

[killman]

Here is some debate. If I am going with a friend grizz hunting for purpose of I guess you could say "back-up" do I technically need a hunting license?

[mark]

Are you a hunter??? Plan on hunting this year?? Do yerself a favor, aviod any conflict, and buy a lic.!!!!

[Shoey]

Are you a hunter??? Plan on hunting this year?? Do yerself a favor, aviod any conflict, and buy a lic.!!!!

AMEN!

Pay the $32!!!

[killman]

Yes, I plan to. I was just thinking.

[K-1]

If it's your friends grizz tag (LEH) you can't shoot it . Read "Hunt and Hunting " in the definitions in the regs. that may put a lid on your can of worms.

[Fisher-Dude]

If it's your friends grizz tag (LEH) you can't shoot it . Read "Hunt and Hunting " in the definitions in the regs. that may put a lid on your can of worms.

X2. You can't shoot his bear. Technically, if he wounded or missed it, and you shot it to save your arses, you would be required to report it and likely lose possession and maybe fined. Also, if you were to "hunt" the bear as defined in the regs, you'd be breaking the law.

You may want to buy a black bear tag if you plan on hunting with him, just to pass the "stink test".

[hunter1947]

The regs say no shooting to a person that has no tag for a Griz or other. Most of us no that you can't shoot an animal for your partner if you don't have a tag for it. If I was in the same predicament and I had to put down ether a Griz or a black or other that did charge me or my partner I would shoot in self defence in order to save me or my partner. I would face the consequences latter. Lets face it ,it would be better to save you or your partner rather then not shoot this animal if you the back up person did not have a tag for. We have all seen hunting videos what happens when a guide or another hunter who shoots a bear for a person that has the only legal right to shoot the animal. To me its better to shoot an animal if needed to do then loose ether your life or both of your life's over it. ,I'm sure it happens quit often but they who might be in the same predicament will bend the rules to meet the legal demands ,you just don't hear about it..

[Bighorn hunter]

Was'nt the question whether you could carry a gun without a hunting licence? Is it not possible to do so with a valid fac? I don't know either and am curious too. Like everyone is saying though, buy the licence anyway to avoid conflict, cause sooner or later you need to buy it anyway.

I guess the other question is why would you be carrying a gun in the bush without the intent to hunt? Can you carry a gun just for self defence and not suffer a fine for using it?

bhh

[boxhitch]

A valid PAL allows you to carry a rifle anywhere. But the stink test comes when a CO asks what you are doing in the bush with it.
Save the hassle, and have a valid license, and ensure a season is open for something. Coyotes do not need a tag.

[Bow Walker]

Here is some debate. If I am going with a friend grizz hunting for purpose of I guess you could say "back-up" do I technically need a hunting license?

In a word - Yes. Nothing technical about it - you are required to have a license.

[boxhitch]

you are required to have a license.To cover what, exactly ??

[Fisher-Dude]

To cover what, exactly ??

To pursue game. Can't do it on a PAL alone.

Remember we used to be able to buy that $7 provincial firearms license thing, before C-68? That was required just to transport a firearm, but you couldn't hunt with it. I think the PAL is an equivalent.

[Mr. Dean]

If the man isn't hunting, no license is needed. As a back up person, you're really only there if things should go haywire. IMO this would then be considered a killing for the protection of human life.

Hence why/how Mrs. Dean tags along toting a 12 guage when I go chasing blackies.

That's my spin.

[Mr. Dean]

To pursue game. Can't do it on a PAL alone.

Remember we used to be able to buy that $7 provincial firearms license thing, before C-68? That was required just to transport a firearm, but you couldn't hunt with it. I think the PAL is an equivalent.

... But he isn't the hunter and isn't pursuing anything. Just tagging along with the one that is.

Yes. That little paper has been squashed. It DID permit you to carry and shoot in the bush, for non hunting activities. PAL covers all of this now.

[mcrae]

I think the grey area here that would open this up to whatever interpretation of the law the CO's decide to go with that day is that he is accompanying someone who is actively hunting a grizz. I would just buy a license and a bear tag personally and save the hassle...

If he was out fishing or hiking and no "hunting" was involved I think they would not care but because he is with someone who is hunting I think it could be an issue if they decide to make it one...

[Fisher-Dude]

... But he isn't the hunter and isn't pursuing anything. Just tagging along with the one that is.

Yes. That little paper has been squashed. It DID permit you to carry and shoot in the bush, for non hunting activities. PAL covers all of this now.

I would say he DEFINITELY fits the regulations' definition of "hunting":


Hunt and Hunting

- includes shooting at,
attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, following
after or on the trail of, stalking, or lying
in wait for wildlife or attempting to do any of
those things, whether or not the wildlife is
then or subsequently wounded, killed or
captured:
(a) with intention to capture the wildlife, or
(b)while in possession of a firearm or other
weapon.

[BiG Boar]

I would at least buy a black bear tag and then at least you can hunt. I mean, just going along on the hunt wouldnt be as much fun as actually hunting yourself. What if you see a world record black bear and have no tag? I would be kicking myself and driving really fast to the nearest place to buy one. Yes I would break the law and speed there, over the posted speed! Oh no, I am talking about something illegal, I hope this thread doesnt get shut down!!! mu hahahaha

[mcrae]

I am pretty sure black bear tags are not valid for 24 hours after time of purchase so there is no point in speeding anyways LOL...

[Mr. Dean]

Gotta disagree FD.
If that was the case, we wouldn't be taking along 'newbs' that are somewhat interested in doin CORE, that are proficient with a rifle.

Everything you highlighted is what the person with the tag is doing. The 'other' guy isn't expecting to locate and/or kill anything. He's just there to soak up the experience AND to defend life, IF needed.

Your thinking would reguire photographers to have a hunting license, if they wanted to pack a rifle or *other* weapon....



(a) with intention to capture the wildlife,
The 'other' guy's intent isn't bagging an animal. His hope is too SEE it done.

[Mr. Dean]

Also. Anyone NOT having a tag, is NOT allowed to be hunting.

All hunters need to go solo then?
Gate's is a criminal?
Mrs. Dean is also?

Is there a reward for his and hers capture???
What's CrimeStoppers #?


I gotta say, I'm pretty confident with my intepretation on this.

[Fisher-Dude]

Also. Anyone NOT having a tag, is NOT allowed to be hunting.

All hunters need to go solo then?
Gate's is a criminal?
Mrs. Dean is also?

Is there a reward for his and hers capture???
What's CrimeStoppers #?


I gotta say, I'm pretty confident with my intepretation on this.

Good luck with that. He can accompany without a gun or he can pursue coyotes or magpies, with a license. I wouldn't want to push my luck for $32.

http://www.crimeproofing.co.uk/Crime-proofing-images/image-page-scales-of-justice.jpg

[Mr. Dean]

I'd also agree, IF you are able to buy the tag - DO SO! but remember, this is a Grizz hunt and they don't sell'em. You're still faced with dealing with this....

[Mr. Dean]

See post 19 for changes I made

[Mr. Dean]

It ALL falls on intent.

Mrs. Dean doesn't intend on anything. Her only intent is protecting me, or her, should things go south in MY pursuit of an animal. She's only there to see IF hunting could be something that she's like.

For her to leave the gun @ home, is foolish. She's an excellent shot and has proven to keep a calm head.

[hunter1947]

I myself I don't think a co would do squat if he asked for your hunting L and you did not have a L for that year. This applies If you were tagging along with a friend that has a L and a bear tag. As long as the other person has his PAL L with him while carring his firearm. I can go any wear into the bush with my gun and not have a HL as long as I have my PAL with me ,PS the game warden can't do squat to you period. I HAD A CO STOP ME ON A ROAD BLOCK ONE DAY A FEW YEARS BACK I NEVER HAD A HL SO I SHOWED HIM MY PAL THEN HE ASK ME WHY I DIDENT HAVE A HUNTING L. I TOLD HIM I HAD THE RIFLE FOR SELF DEFENCE WHEN I WAS OUT SCOUTING FOR DEER. I SAID THAT I WAS GOING TO GET MY L LATTER ON IN THE YEAR ,he then tanked me and said carry on. IF I HAD TO SHOOT AN ANIMALN SELF DEFENCE AND DID NOT HAVE A HL OR TAG WITH ME THEN THAT WOULD OPEN UP A HOLE NEW CAN OF WORMS. LIKE OTHERS HAVE SAID ON THIS THREAD ,JUST GO BUY A LIECENSE AND A BEAR TAG AND BE DONE WITH IT YOUR GOING TO NEED ONE AVENTULY ANYWAYS.

[boxhitch]

(a) with intention to capture the wildlife,
This is a lame line in the definition. Are they afraid to say 'kill' or 'harvest' ? Should at least read 'capture, dead or alive'.

[boxhitch]

Her only intent is protecting me, or her, should things go south in MY pursuit of an animal.
Mr Dean, you may have a tough sell if the Mrs. is standing with you, over a dead animal, rifle in hand, and no license.
The def. of hunting is a large lasso, for a reason of enforcement. Then its up to the courts.
Its not all just about what the Officer in the field thinks, the battle is with the Judge.

[Bowzone_Mikey]

I gotta agree with Mr Dean here ... But that said ... "You are carring your Buds Backup rifle in case his Jams up" and lending moral support

[shoot to kill]

Mr Dean, you may have a tough sell if the Mrs. is standing with you, over a dead animal, rifle in hand, and no license.
The def. of hunting is a large lasso, for a reason of enforcement. Then its up to the courts.
Its not all just about what the Officer in the field thinks, the battle is with the Judge.


Actually she would have a shotgun not a rifle :razz:

not really a tough sell if thats the case... empty rifle cartridge... one rifle that hes carrying. If you have the proper licence and your carrying a gun it doesnt matter if you dont have a HL imo. last time i checked it wasnt illegal to carry a gun when out in the bush. and if your afraid of being questioned by a CO, you havent done ANYTHING illegal so your fine.

[boxhitch]

If you have the proper licence and your carrying a gun it doesnt matter if you dont have a HL imo.
No arguement there, from me. And its all a moot point, if you don't get checked.
My point was only to be aware of the 'Stink Test' as F-D mentions.
Appear clean, and there will be no issues.

[killman]

I kind of thought this could be a good debate. I fully intended on getting a license and did already, but my thinking would be that I did not need one so long as I did not intend on shooting anything which I don't :-D.

Thanks for everyone's input.

[KevinB]

I kind of thought this could be a good debate. I fully intended on getting a license and did already, but my thinking would be that I did not need one so long as I did not intend on shooting anything which I don't :-D.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Well technically, according to the regs, even if you are looking for wildlife, whether or not you actually intend to subsequently kill or capture it, when in the posession of a firearm or other weapon, then by definition you are hunting. Read FD's quote from the regs on page 2 of the thread. So, yeah, an over-zealous Co could give you a ticket if they found you out in the woods, with a rifle over your shoulder, walking around with someone who is hunting, if you don't have a HL - it might be tough to prove to a judge that you were not at any time doing anything that might be interpreted as looking for wildlife. Even Hunter1947's situation could have been treated quite differently by an unreasonable CO. All depends on the CO and the judge if you try to contest it. Really, for the $35 it's not worth worrying about.

Anyone going out in the woods with a newbie who has no HL, to let them see if they might like to hunt, shouldn't be letting them carry a firearm, if they are actually looking for wildlife etc. They are by broad definition hunting and they require a license. I think it's pretty simple?