Like Rob said, technically, "no wrong answers here so far."

So Sylvan, allow me to ask your opinion on this scenario.............

I kill a big whitetail buck out of season, on my own property.....or on public hunting land.

In this scenario.........I am NOTa poacher?

Please don`t misunderstand me, I rarely ever use the word "poacher", I am much more colorful in my description of people who knowingly violate game laws.

That said, I have been hunting since 1972, and I was a regular at my grandpa`s hunting camp for several years before that. From the first time I ever heard the term "poacher" it has always been used to describe someone killing, or even just attempting to kill an animal out of season, or going beyond legal harvest limits.

What would you call somebody who killed a deer out of season, if you did not call them a poacher?

As usual on contentious issues, I’m coming down somewhere in the middle. Personally, I consider poaching as “taking game (or fish) using illegal means”. Trespassing is an illegal means – you’re breaking the law in order to get where the deer are. Hunting out of season is an illegal means – you’re hunting when there’s less pressure and when you have no competition, which gives you an unfair advantage. Spotlighting is using an illegal means – you’re doing something illegal to give you an advantage. Sticking dynamite in a salt lick and pushing the plunger when a big buck is licking away is using an illegal means…you get the idea. To my mind, leaving your buck tag in the truck in a state where you’re supposed to tag the deer on the spot it expired is not poaching. It’s an oversight. It didn’t give you an unfair advantage in hunting the deer. Now on to the more philosophical aspects of the discussion.

To Sylvan’s (and others’) arguments: Dictionaries are useful in defining words. I’d say that is their reason for existing. I’d also say that most people would look at the dictionary as the final authority (anyone play scrabble or other word games?). And the first definition is considered the primary one in all of the dictionaries I’ve used. Changing the definition of words does sometimes have significant consequences. I am going to use a drastic example here that might get me in trouble, but I really mean no offense by it. The word “******” originally meant “slave”, without regard to race or skin color, in England, back when white people were slaves there and before there were any significant numbers of black slaves there. Then it meant a black person, and was not necessarily meant derogatorily. Then it became a derogatory term for black person. Now, its meaning and how it is taken depends on the skin color of who is speaking the word. Its original meaning is one of the primary (though not the only) reasons I find it such an offensive word.

To Reacher (and others’) arguments: Words do change (see above). I also think that Sylvan’s post with the various definitions that agree with what you said back up your argument.

All of that said, people mean what they mean when they say what they say. But communication is a two (or more) part transaction. The part of the speaker (or writer) and the part of the listener (or reader). It’s when the speaker/writer’s intention differs from the listener/reader’s interpretation that miscommunication occurs. One reason dictionaries are helpful.

My two cents.

WOuldnt surprise me. I have heard of people getting charges theft over a $1000 for cleaning out a stocked trout pond, after dark. The farms around here charge approx $4/lbs average 1.5-2lbs a fish.

Interesting, I've been hunting just a little bit longer than you. My first deer season was 1964. Anyway, since then everytime I ever heard the term poacher it was the Robin Hood story or generally associated with people sneaking onto a preseve in Africa or some foreign place to kill some highly valued animal either for a trophy or e.g. a rhino horn or for elephant ivory. It always envolved somebody killing in an area they were'nt supposed to be and always a pretty serious thing. Nothing to do with some trivial game violation. Locally it was somebody hunting on posted property.

Now with regard to what to call somebody who kills a deer out of season or takes more than their limit. Well regardless of where they do it I call them jerks. If they do it on their own property I wouldn't call them a poacher though but certainly guilty of game violations and should be prosecuted. I don't know that thereare specific names for every crime. Just curious, what do you call somebody who purposely drives through stop signs? You certainly wouldn't call them a "speeder" would you? To me poaching is a specific violation not a general one. It means hunting where you are not legally supposed to be hunting. If you're doing that, whether you kill anything or not, I would call you a poacher. If that's not the offense than imo you're not poaching anymore than the guy that went through the stop sign is a speeder.

Anyway, I don't use the term poacher either but it has kind of suprised me for a while now since I've been reading posts here that many use it in a way that has seemed pretty strange to me.It seems to just mean the same thing asgame law violator. I've always thought of it as something more specific and something more severe than, again some trivial violation. That's one of the reasons I brought it up. Oh well, to each his own but when/if you read my posts and you see the term poacher, I will mean the 1st useage of the definition in the dictionary and tresspassing is implied.

I always considered poaching taking any game animal out of season, without a legal tag that is your own, or on a property which you should not be hunting on for whatever reason.. My only thought on it was when your baiting an animal is it poaching.. I can agree that in most cases if something is taken illegaly then it could be considered poaching but baiting is legal in some states and some areas, or leading up to a season you can sometime bait or feed but it must be removed within a certain ammount of time before hunting season. Whatever the case is I always thought this to be illegal baiting and not poaching but I suppose with the definition being used "loosely" it could cover anything taken outside of the exact law.

As noted in the post that I believe started this I know a few guys that "toss" apples before the season. While I don't do this or agree with it I don't run out and turn them in. I just hunt by the law and feel good when I'm successful at hunting by the rules.
Then again if ya turned in everyone that used corn, peanut butter, apples or even a salt lick then there will be a lot more deer for me to hunt.

Honestly though, If I even tried to "bait" I think all I would attract are them darn cows.. lol

Just follow the laws guys, they are there for a reason. No matter what definition you use I will say the one word that covers it all.. ILLEGAL
Call it what you want but if that's words involved then it'll catch up to ya one day...

As somebody else pointed out. There may not be a poaching charge.

Like the example I used before. To steal. I don't think there is a charge of stealing.

There is

petty theft
grand theft
robbery
buglary
embezzlement
identity theft
and countless others.

They are all stealing.

Perhaps in this case, the type of offense defines the charge. If you are not tresspassing and you are taking game out of season, that might be called one thing. Bating in a no-bait state might be called something else. Tresspassing to take legal game you have a tag for might be called something else. You get my point. The word poaching might apply in all those situations even though the law would not charge you with such.

Sylvan, I had a big reply ready to post, but I had a power outage and my computer shut down.

Anyway, I guess the official definition of the word "poacher" is different than whatmany, many people use it for. Myself included.

If you shoot more than the legal limit, you may be a game law violator. If you shoot a deer at night with the aid of a spotlight, or if you kill a deer out of season......you are a poacher in my book.

I guess the PA Game Commission did not read the dictionary either.....

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=483&q=152267

That of course means that poaching is a "general category" of offense. My point has been all along thatpoaching is a very specific offense. Again, according to the primary useage as defined in the dictionary, it is trespassingfor the purpose of taking fish orgame.In other words to use your example it would be analogous to say grand theft, not the general term stealing. I would say the general category would be tresspassing and the type of tresspass would be for the purpose of taking fish or game or in a word, "poaching". Anyway, just my opinion. This has been an interesting discussion. Y'all take care!

And that is exactly my original point and the reason I started this thread! If fact I used the phrase "nearly everybody" instead of "many, many".Question was, how come?