# Semantics?



## The Gopher (Aug 25, 2010)

Let me start by saying that I have been a hunter since I was old enough to use any kind of weapon, am still a hunter and will always be a hunter. But...I am ardently against poaching of any kind.

So my question is this: Is the term "poaching" just another word for "hunting" in other countries? I see a lot of posts mentioning poaching and i hope it is just international semantics, not the action of illegally taking game.


----------



## NaturalFork (Jan 21, 2010)

Check out this thread. It goes into the differences.

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/7644-terminology-question/page__p__79241__hl__poaching__fromsearch__1#entry79241


----------



## HopefulHunter (Oct 15, 2011)

When I use the term poaching for my personal activities, I refer to taking game subtly in public places. Land owned by the government and often overrun with small game perfect for the pot but never harmed (unless a fast dog off it's lead gets lucky!)

I have always had permission to hunt on the land in places i have before. And would not hunt protected species, be that endangered, or protected by a season, or animals owned by someone else (Including a gamekeeper's pheasants! Although we have one that's migrated to our paddock which may get the chop one day.)

I don't think in England poaching is considered to be that serious a crime as it tends to be the taking of small game from people who don't need/want it, albeit without their permission.

Robin Hood 'was' a poacher (if he existed!) and I think that's part of the reason people can be rather fond of the term in England.

There are other terms used for people who take livestock or horse and for those who steal game on a more serious level, but I won't use them for fear of being arrested for discrimination, after all, I wouldn't want to use freedom of speech would I?

Eddie.

EDIT:
PS. Have just read through that other post, and the comment by Bushwhacker is as closed-minded as any of the people he is criticising. He states " all land is owned by greedy farmers or estate owners that know they can make money out leasing out the shooting rights" and this is the kind of attitude that I hate to see towards these people. They lease the shooting rights to properties because they have to make money to support their businesses in any way possible, farming especially. If farmers weren't able to lease their shooting rights, they would struggle even more to supply the country with the (massive) amount of food it wastes needs every day without having even greater government subsidies, provided for by the tax paid by citizens!
Farmers are very hard working people, they are almost always forced into turning a penny at every corner. Of course there's farmers and then there's "Farm owners" These are much more of a mixed bag, some of them the perfect example of human decency. Others would only serve to benefit humanity by being minced and fed to their pigs.

Hopefully this outlines now why I can't abide poaching on farm or estate land, but am perfectly happy to poach in publicly owned areas with no game control methods in place.

That's my tuppence on poaching and farming!

Eddie.


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Here in Canada, the term "poaching" generally refers to the taking of game (including fish) out of season, or where such game is legally protected. It is generally regarded quite seriously by the public, both by most hunters and non-hunters. Prescribed penalties are pretty severe ... but convictions are not common due to the difficulty of policing such a vast country.

In my experience in Alberta and in British Columbia, there is almost no leasing of hunting rights, as one has in Britain. I know of only one private "hunting preserve" here on Vancouver Island, and that ceased to operate many years ago. Perhaps there are such places, but I do not know of them. In many places, the anti-hunters have pressured to bring about severe hunting restrictions or out right bans ... only to complain that the deer and rabbits are devastating gardens and demanding that something (other than killing the poor things) be done about it. There is a domestic animal protection act, which allows farmers to dispatch predators threatening their livestock ... and when I had a farm, I occasionally did just that. However, farmers who have hay or grain fields are not provided such leeway when it comes to protecting their crops from the ravages of elk or deer, which frequently spill over from nearby parks and reserves. And as urban areas have spread around Victoria, there are increasing problems with black bears and cougars. With such conflicts, it is perhaps not suprising that some individuals take matters into their own hands. Still, I cannot bring myself to advocate violating the game laws as a general practice.

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## HopefulHunter (Oct 15, 2011)

That's fair enough Charles, seems like you have taken a very sensible position on the problem.

In England, to discharge a firearm on someone's land you must have explicit permission of the owner, preferably written. Additionally, to kill and remove animals from their land also requires permission, once again, preferably written.

So rather than selling 'rights', farmers will simply sell 'permission' to hunt on their land. It is often sold to shooting syndicates or the like which are the ones to make the actual profit from the procedure. Once again showing the farmers getting screwed over for someone else to make a profit  But such is life! I can move on from that now, I'm a boatbuilder. must remember that....

Eddie


----------



## wombat (Jun 10, 2011)

Okay, I confess. I've poached an egg or two in my life.


----------

