According to some responses a professional hunting guide that is not shooting doesn't need a license. That won't float, because a person helping the trigger puller is also a hunter.

My wife has never hunted. She doesn't especially like hunting. If I were to take her with me and she had no firearm and was just walking with me and I was the one with the firearm and she was given a citation there would be hell to pay. It had to be a GW that had no sense or was just chicken sh*t and they need to find another job where being like that is a requirement.

I can't believe this thread got beyond one guy answering "no"....dang 3 pages of what ifs. lol

Some of these threads should make it to the GW chronicles! Somewhere out there is a possum cop sitting in his truck reading these threads. Half the time he is laughing so hard he pees himself and the other half he is just staring with a bewildered look in his eye wondering how some people can be so ignorant. I'm not making any specific accusations as to which thread, I'm just saying...……………………………..

I am not an attorney, but glad that I am not alone in the interpretation that is likely to occur from a GW.

It is amazing that people want to argue and act like police are going to not write you or harass you when that is literally what they are trained to do. Police are trained to try and subvert your rights and they VERY often overstep and reach on citations.

Also, I dont see how people dont think that assisting in taking game is hunting.

I believe she would have to have the Public Lands Permit.

Sounds like you've had some first hand experience with this. What were you arrested for?

LOL, Never even been close to being arrested.

Sounds like you have never hunted public lands before or read an article in your life.

Why don't those of you that think his wife needs a license send her the money to purchase one??? That way you can be assured she will not get a citation. Also, for those that do think she needs a license for tagging along with husband, do you think the GW will give you a citation for deer hunting out of season if he catches you toting a rifle when you are going to pull the camera chip at the deer feeder?

Personally, I am really not concerned if she gets a citation (or not).

Bahahaha, if dude doesnt want to spend $20 to not go through the trouble of being questioned, he can do that. He asked for advice and it was given.

I tote a rifle pretty much anytime I go to the woods year around ... hogs, coyotes, bobcat, mountain lion, etc. doesn't mean just deer

@ KSTexas: LOL, Never even been close to being arrested.

"Sounds like you have never hunted public lands before or read an article in your life."

Wrong on both counts. Successful on public land two years in a row, read extensively on the subject.

Where do you draw your information from relating to police being trained to "subvert your rights"? I'd like to know so that I can appropriately categorize your statement.

I respect law enforcement and make sure that my interactions with them stay positive.

That being said, you are a fool to think that law enforcement are there to protect you or ensure that your rights are upheld.

If you trust police to do the right thing unconditionally and to look out for you, there is nothing left to talk about.

I am actually glad that you have had successful hunts on public lands and haven't had a negative experience with any game wardens.

I will say that generally they are all pleasant, knowledgeable, and often times forgiving if you have made an honest mistake. That doesn't mean that they all are.

I live my life with the idea that I may beat something in court, doesn't mean I want to deal with an overzealous person enforcing what they think the law should be.

OP's wife would probably be completely fine and not even run into a Game Warden that may question her much less give her a ticket.

To me, like I have said several times, it isn't worth the trouble to not get one.

But like I said, not my ticket and not my problem. It is okay to have different opinions. I gave mine as well did others that shared the same opinion, OP can draw his own conclusion.

This was back in the 1970's and I remember it well, not sure if it held up in court or not. I still fish the same spot though the big tree has long sense rotted away. The same GW and the county judge placed an article in the local paper that anyone killing a doe with the new 4 deer either sex regulations in Harrison county would receive a ticket for taking a doe no matter what the new hunting digest said. I called TP&W and talked with 2 different people and got 2 different answers to what was legal. It took a Certified Letter to TP&W to get it sorted out. The letter was hand delivered to my door by said GW saying to shoot all the doe I wanted but please don't send another letter to Austin.

Nice speech, but you didn't answer my question. Here it is again:
Where do you draw your information from relating to police being trained to "subvert your rights"? Own what you stated as fact, that police are "trained to subvert your rights". Let us know where you get your information, or label it as your opinion.

I'll ignore being called a fool.

I absolutely believe that law enforcement is here to protect, and uphold my rights. For example, it is my right to hunt where and how I do. It would be impossible for me to hunt where I do without law enforcement working, enforcing the law. The area is so remote, access is strictly limited and without enforcement, there would be so many hunters doing it illegally that it would be unsafe, and over run with vehicles and hunters that by law couldn't be there (felons). I actually call the game warden and let him know I'm coming, what my vehicle looks like and after the hunt how I did. He upholds my right to be there by checking on my vehicle and making sure the local meth heads don't break into my truck while I'm 4 miles away on foot.

So, let me know the answer to my question, or let me know if it is just your opinion that law enforcement is trained to subvert our rights.

I think I'll just take her with me without a license and try to plead our case should we get stopped.

Plead nothing. She isn’t hunting, end of story.

These two responses are the most sensible in this thread. This has been my experience too. I take my wife with me on those rare occasions she want to go but she doesn't hunt and has no desire to do so either. I don't buy her a license, I don't ask her to carry anything or do anything for me that I wouldn't or couldn't do alone. And I intend to keep bringing her when she wants to go.

Those responses where LE is trained to subvert rights is over the top wrong. They are trained to observe for infractions and to enforce the law.

To answer your questions, I get my information from two very close friends that are in law enforcement and a family member that spent his career in intelligence.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, mainly the below three excerpts. You are arguing because you think it is fun. I have nothing left to say to you.

If you trust police to do the right thing unconditionally and to look out for you, there is nothing left to talk about.

I will say that generally they are all pleasant, knowledgeable, and often times forgiving if you have made an honest mistake. That doesn't mean that they all are.

OP's wife would probably be completely fine and not even run into a Game Warden that may question her much less give her a ticket.

I read what you wrote, closely. As for arguing, you called me a fool. I specifically took issue with one statement, "Law Enforcement is trained to subvert your rights". That's a strong word, that infers an intentional undermining or overthrowing of our rights. I call Bull on your answer. One thing LE is trained on is restraint, which is why many have not responded to your insult of their profession. You can't walk that back.

You will forever be known on this forum, by me, as the guy that stated that Law Enforcement is trained to subvert our rights.

As far as police not protecting citizens, it isn't an opinion, it is a fact that was ruled upon by the supreme court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ve-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

As far as police being trained to subvert your rights, police are allowed to lie and trick you in any investigation in order to get the answers they want/need.

Here is case law to support that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp

Here is a shorter article explaining how police are allowed to lie to suspects to get information and often access to search.

https://www.policemag.com/339673/the-lawful-use-of-deception

Here is a really long Cornell Law Review Article about it for a more reputable source.

https://www.policemag.com/339673/the-lawful-use-of-deception

I want to reiterate, there are a lot of good and honest police out there that do the job because they want to be helpful and serve the people. I have had plenty of positive interactions with police and Game Wardens. I have enjoyed speaking to Game Wardens and have sought them out several times to ask for opinions and information.

From earlier in this thread
"I will say that generally they are all pleasant, knowledgeable, and often times forgiving if you have made an honest mistake. That doesn't mean that they all are."

The fact is that they are not required to protect the people and it is arguable what they are required to do under "serve."

I don't agree with people putting anyone, including police, on a pedestal thinking that they are going to always be on your side. There have been way too many instances where good people have been railroaded, tricked, and sometimes killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My whole point to begin with is to just make sure that there can be no questions when hunting, especially public lands. Make sure that you have all of your bases covered.

I am just not sure how I am insulting a profession by stating what has already been decided by the highest court in the country and a lot of case law. It isn't my opinion, it is the opinion of the court that police don't have to protect you and are legally allowed to lie to you in order to convince you to give up your rights.

I personally have had a police officer try to tell me that I was DUI when I had been hit in the face by a come along that punched a hole through my lip and cut my toungue. I had hospital release paperwork that I offered to show him that I had been given no pain killers and explained why I couldn't speak clearly. When his partner arrived, his partner took him to the side and suddenly everything was okay. At the time, I was parked waiting for my girlfriend to come down from her apartment to move her car. I had done nothing wrong and he started questioning me about an unrelated call and if I had any information in that.

That is just my personal story of harassment, most other encounters I have had were positive.

I don't understand why so many people think that everything is so black and white. Life is full of gray areas in almost everything we do. There are plenty instances where what is right isn't always legal (ie in some states it is not okay to dispatch an animal after legal shooting time that was wounded before the end of legal shooting time, but the right thing is to end the suffering) and sometimes what is legal isnt always right (ie overharvesting a property because you have the tags).

You can disagree with how policing works but still respect officers as individuals. It can be both.

I hope that this brings some insight as to where I am coming from.

OP states that he made his decision to not get her a hunting license. I can respect that and don't take any issue with him doing that. People can do as they please.

I apologize for inferring that you are a fool. That was a poor choice of words.

Case Closed, you're that guy.

Alright man, good for you.

I have seen you literally argue with everyone that brings up anything legal around here, so I guess I should feel honored.