- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Paging Daylower---duck hunting question
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:37 pm to Ole Geauxt
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:37 pm to Ole Geauxt
Can't find anything specifically in Louisiana, but all of the states I have found said that if you provide an "act of assistance in taking game" that you need a license.
1
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:39 pm to TigerDeacon
my thing is, in the field, how can they prove ownership of the dog. Something tells me, if you had a camera around your neck, and a 1 man limit, the game wardens would leave you alone. I dont know if the camera is pertinent.. 
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:42 pm to Charter n Coke
I would think if he's just sittin/watching with you, y'all will be ok. 
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:42 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
A hunting license is required to “take” game or furbearing animals. The definition of take includes “taking, attempting to take, pursuing, hunting, capturing, or killing any wildlife or freshwater fish…by any means whether or not such actions result in obtaining possession of such wildlife…”.
Generally, any non-exempt person who is participating in the act of take as defined above, is required to have proper licenses and permits for the species they are taking. This definition has a well established interpretation throughout the state and has been accepted in court. The definition has been applied to many activities that generally do not lead to the individual involved in the activity taking possession of fish or wildlife. For example, the person who uses dogs to chase fox is required to have a hunting license even though there is no expectation of reducing the fox to possession. The act of casting or catching the dogs is participating in the take, whether it is for deer, furbearers, or other legal species. A person/guide who sits in a turkey blind, without a gun, and calls turkey for a person with a gun, needs to have a license and turkey permit since they are participating in the take. A person/guide, without a gun, who sets decoys or calls ducks for a person with a gun needs to have a hunting license and proper waterfowl permits since they are participating in the take.
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:43 pm to Bleeding purple
quote:
A hunting license is required to “take” game or furbearing animals. The definition of take includes “taking, attempting to take, pursuing, hunting, capturing, or killing any wildlife or freshwater fish…by any means whether or not such actions result in obtaining possession of such wildlife…”.
Generally, any non-exempt person who is participating in the act of take as defined above, is required to have proper licenses and permits for the species they are taking. This definition has a well established interpretation throughout the state and has been accepted in court. The definition has been applied to many activities that generally do not lead to the individual involved in the activity taking possession of fish or wildlife. For example, the person who uses dogs to chase fox is required to have a hunting license even though there is no expectation of reducing the fox to possession. The act of casting or catching the dogs is participating in the take, whether it is for deer, furbearers, or other legal species. A person/guide who sits in a turkey blind, without a gun, and calls turkey for a person with a gun, needs to have a license and turkey permit since they are participating in the take. A person/guide, without a gun, who sets decoys or calls ducks for a person with a gun needs to have a hunting license and proper waterfowl permits since they are participating in the take.
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:49 pm to angus1838
quote:
Generally, any non-exempt person who is participating in the act of take as defined above, is required to have proper licenses and permits for the species they are taking. This definition has a well established interpretation throughout the state and has been accepted in court. The definition has been applied to many activities that generally do not lead to the individual involved in the activity taking possession of fish or wildlife. For example, the person who uses dogs to chase fox is required to have a hunting license even though there is no expectation of reducing the fox to possession. The act of casting or catching the dogs is participating in the take, whether it is for deer, furbearers, or other legal species. A person/guide who sits in a turkey blind, without a gun, and calls turkey for a person with a gun, needs to have a license and turkey permit since they are participating in the take. A person/guide, without a gun, who sets decoys or calls ducks for a person with a gun needs to have a hunting license and proper waterfowl permits since they are participating in the take.
this is all fine and good, but a person that is only aiding in the retrieval of the dead game, is not really aiding in the taking of the said animal, am i right? I could understand if you were using your dogs as a pointers or flush dogs while shooting quail, but you are only picking up the already harvested animal for the licensed hunter
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:55 pm to Charter n Coke
quote:
The act of casting or catching the dogs is participating in the take,
Posted on 1/21/13 at 4:58 pm to Ole Geauxt
casting the dog? Like from a rod and reel?
Posted on 1/21/13 at 5:21 pm to Charter n Coke
quote:
but a person that is only aiding in the retrieval of the dead game, is not really aiding in the taking of the said animal, am i right?
Well to tell the truth many times birds brought back are not dead, only mostly dead.
Posted on 1/21/13 at 5:22 pm to Charter n Coke
quote:naw,, more like "fetch dammit"..
Like from a rod and reel?
Posted on 1/21/13 at 5:25 pm to Bleeding purple
What is the real intent though? Conservation of game animals, preservation of the sport, and income source for WLF. If that is the goal, does anyone think that these laws are benifical to the states residents, the state, the game animals, or the sport of hunting?
Posted on 1/21/13 at 6:19 pm to Bleeding purple
Sorry my phone died while in the woods but the answer is $$$$ not conservation. I looked it up after I was almost ticketed in Ga. I had no gun just dogs to help a friend run bear when a game warden said if I dropped the tail gate I would be ticketed. 300$ later I had a license.
Posted on 1/21/13 at 6:20 pm to angus1838
quote:
300$ later I had a license
damn.. wonder how much the ticket would have been?
Posted on 1/22/13 at 9:42 am to Charter n Coke
bump for daylower
Posted on 1/22/13 at 9:43 am to Bleeding purple
quote:
IF a licensed hunter and his unlicensed friend who has a duck dog go hunting together and there is only one gun, and one shooter and one limit of ducks taken by that shooter (the liscenced hunter) is the unlicensed friend illegally hunting for providing the dog and instruction to the dog?
As long as he doesnt have a gun, he aint huntin'.
ETA: I aint writing you a ticket for that anyway.
This post was edited on 1/22/13 at 9:45 am
Posted on 1/22/13 at 9:45 am to brass2mouth
quote:
As long as he doesnt have a gun, he aint huntin'
What about putting del monte niblet corn on a trotline rigged with bream hooks? Some how the wood ducks keep getting on my line. Can I keep them?
Posted on 1/22/13 at 9:47 am to Bleeding purple
quote:
In texas possession limits are nullified when game is finally processed and in storage.
This is true in LA as well, with the EXCEPTION of ducks, and that's everywhere since the way the federal law is written, it doesn't differentiate ducks you just shot that morning from ducks you shot last year in the freezer.
Posted on 1/22/13 at 9:56 am to brass2mouth
so if I start lableling my frozen duck breast as pheasent breast or chucker, I'm good right?
Interesting twist, what about mounts? If you have 6 mounted ducks wouldn't you be perpetually in possession of a limit?
Interesting twist, what about mounts? If you have 6 mounted ducks wouldn't you be perpetually in possession of a limit?
Posted on 1/22/13 at 9:57 am to Bleeding purple
what are the actual odds of someone actually checking my freezer and finding an over possession of ducks
Posted on 1/22/13 at 9:59 am to jimbeam
0% and I know I am splitting hairs here.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News