Party Hunting

[schmoe147]

So some friends and myself where discussing party hunting. Anyhow we came across a situation and wonder if it would be considered party Hunting, here it is....Your sitting in a deer stand with your significant other both of you have a valid deer license. Only one of you has a weapon and a deer comes through and boom. You tag it with the license of the person who didn't pull the trigger. Obviously both people were "Hunting" as defined by the regulation book. Is this Party Hunting. GO !!!!

[eyeguy 54]

well...... ya lol

[highlife4me]

Perfectly legal. Some people just do not feel comfortable with 2 guns in the stand, especially if hunting with a child.

[KenM1987]

Actually no that is not legal.

A “party” is defined as any group of two or more licensed deer hunters who

are all afield; hunting together at the same time; AND all using firearms

(including muzzleloaders) or all using archery

[Jameson]

Anyone got the definition of "take" from the regs? Would help to determine what "hunting" is. Hunting may be just aiding someone else, even without a weapon in hand.

[leechlake]

I'd say yes the other person can tag because, the other could be "aiding" you by seeing or hearing or any other way helping you kill the animal. Similar to driving deer. If someone was "driving" a deer to you without a license it would be illegal logically if they had a license and not used tag you could use the license. Conversely in a respect another person wouldn't be able to be with you if they didn't have a license. I disagree with that and frankly in 99% of all instances it isn't to "aid" you but I suppose you could get pinched for it.

[hockeybc69]

How about eliminate cross tagging and there is no question as to whats legal?

You shoot it, you tag it. Very easy for 100% of hunters to understand.

[ANYFISH2]

No question, it is perfectly legal.

A person may buy a license, have no intention of shooting an animal at all and never carry a weapon. As long as they are actively participating in the hunt their tag may be used.

[KenM1987]

I guess I don't really understand what is so difficult to see that it says perfectly clear in the rule book that every person must be carrying a firearm or bow for whichever kind of party hunting you are doing. If you are not carrying a firearm i would be willing to bet it is considered lending or cross tagging.

[Jameson]

I guess I don't really understand what is so difficult to see that it says perfectly clear in the rule book that every person must be carrying a firearm or bow for whichever kind of party hunting you are doing. If you are not carrying a firearm i would be willing to bet it is considered lending or cross tagging.

You only need to be carrying that license, not that weapon.

Find the definition of "take" in the regs and share it with us.

[Dave]

Was curious so, direct from the regs. The "AND" is capitalized in the regs as seen below. I myself would read that to mean all hunters have "firearm" or "archery" tags, no mixture, and an assumption all have weapons. Not actually have to carry the weapon since, you never know, some may have to share a weapon. Doesn't say you must carry a weapon.

Party Hunting

• A “party” is defined as any group of two or more licensed deer hunters who

are all afield; hunting together at the same time; AND all using firearms

(including muzzleloaders) or all using archery.

• A mixed group of firearms and archery hunters is considered two separate

parties.

[Wanderer]

REALLY splitting hairs on this one, eh?

You can't get a closer party than two licensed hunters in the same stand together. Maybe they only have one gun they have to share?

Why is that different than one person having multiple guns or bows while hunting? The law's intent is that people (primarily) don't fill archery tags with firearms. I doubt they're concerned with people lawfully sharing a gun. Maybe taking the deer is a difficult shot and one person is the better shooter and the other can't or doesn't want to hunt the whole season so they tag the first one. It's better the person is sitting in the stand at least rather than sitting in the cabin.

The issue isn't even worth the semantics is it?

[ANYFISH2]

Ken,

I have knowledge of this due to a youth hunter this season that I am close to that harvested a deer (his first) with bow, his mother tagged the deer, although she wasn't in the woods at the time. She tagged the deer so her son could keep hunting.

She was ticketed for illegal lending.

CO'S were really good in the fact that they used the situation as a teaching lesson for both. They stated she doesn't even need to own a bow to tag a deer she just needs to be participating in the hunt/taking of the deer. She could film him, drive deer for him or at least just be sitting near him. But she needed to be in the field/woods, not at home, the vehical, or cabin.

Couple hundred dollars later, neither he nor she will make the same mistake again.

[eyeguy 54]

and that makes perfect sense since it says afield and using, not carrying their own, for the first situation.

[schmoe147]

Perfectly legal, just got an email back from DNR with this exact question answered.

I also heard about this story

Myself.

Ken,

I have knowledge of this due to a youth hunter this season that I am close to that harvested a deer (his first) with bow, his mother tagged the deer, although she wasn't in the woods at the time. She tagged the deer so her son could keep hunting.

She was ticketed for illegal lending.

CO'S were really good in the fact that they used the situation as a teaching lesson for both. They stated she doesn't even need to own a bow to tag a deer she just needs to be participating in the hunt/taking of the deer. She could film him, drive deer for him or at least just be sitting near him. But she needed to be in the field/woods, not at home, the vehical, or cabin.

Couple hundred dollars later, neither he nor she will make the same mistake again.

[ANYFISH2]

Schmoe, do I possibly know you?

[schmoe147]

Possibly, but highly Unlikely.

[smallie_hawgin]

How about eliminate cross tagging and there is no question as to whats legal?

You shoot it, you tag it. Very easy for 100% of hunters to understand.

Exactly!!! We are one of VERY few states that actually allow the practice... WHY??? So called tradition... Baloney!

[O.T.C.]

Your name says it all smallie hawgin, it's called though game hawgin. The guys who did best rifle hunting are now airing out their blaze orange once again for the muzzleloader season where I live and hunt. I doubt there was a males name on any of the trophy bucks they already shot. So you think I'm deerless, at least I'll have a better chance muzzleloading and then the same guys who already did well rifle hunting are back at it again more so defending their properties in heated box stands more so than thinking they'll really connect again, their gutpiles aren't even consumed yet from rifle season, but they spared their buck tag.

[schmoe147]

How about eliminate cross tagging and there is no question as to whats legal?

You shoot it, you tag it. Very easy for 100% of hunters to understand.

I would love to see this eliminated myself, been saying it for years !!

[smsmith]

I would love to see this eliminated myself, been saying it for years !!

Its coming, just a matter of time. At least an elimination of crosstagging of bucks anyway

[Farmsfulltime]

Don't see that happening seeing how popular it is , don't think those laws will change soon , pretty effective management tool at the DNRs disposal , Just my opinion of coarse

[mntatonka]

Don't see that happening seeing how popular it is , don't think those laws will change soon , pretty effective management tool at the DNRs disposal , Just my opinion of coarse

oh it'll change, because the vocal minority gets mad when someone shoots two bucks.

[smsmith]

If it happens, it will be at the DNR's request.

[Farmsfulltime]

I don't think the vocal minority has as much pull in high places as you give them credit for , Have been knowen to converse with some DNR staff and the opinion I took away is it just another squeaky wheel and will be ignored the same as most minority movements . DNR will manage for the majority as always maybe even sit in on the stakeholder process and watch it all unfold .

[smsmith]

I don't think the vocal minority has as much pull in high places as you give them credit for , Have been knowen to converse with some DNR staff and the opinion I took away is it just another squeaky wheel and will be ignored the same as most minority movements . DNR will manage for the majority as always maybe even sit in on the stakeholder process and watch it all unfold .

Sit in? Heck, I figured you would have applied to be on the team for your area

[BuckSutherland]

I wouldnt mind seeing party hunting go away. I saw a few parties this year that bought tags for the kids that dont usually hunt at all so the party could shoot a couple does in my area. I would just like to see the population get back to healthy numbers and have my area be hunters choice.

[smsmith]

Let's do a survey of every deer hunter in the state next year and find out if the majority support or oppose crosstagging/party hunting...allow the deer hunters of the state to decide whether the practice continues or not. We already have a "socially managed deer herd"...may as well continue down that path.

[ClownColor]

Pro party hunting here.

[Todd Caswell]

Even if it was "outlawed" it would be for the most part imposible to enforce, and camps that have done it for decades will still do it.. Waste of time trying to change it..