RE: pochers??
 

I won't argue that. But to me, poaching still means something more severe. Like shooting deer out of season, or pheasants out the window.... Something almost incidious. I also agree with whoever said that all of us have broken some game law at one time. Now, as was ducksmokers point, we technically are poaching if our gun is unzipped or our rabbits arent seperated (at least in some states), though any laws I tend to think are assenine, I don't care to much if they get broken either.

RE: pochers??
 

i understand your point Lanse the term has beenchanged to a specific meaning i hope you understand what i am saying
ie(when you go tossing a term like that around) the word has been changed thats what i have been pointing out it was never a bad word just one that got changed in time to label the hunters that do not care about anything but what they want

RE: pochers??
 

mnbirddog yes i agree that when some one says hey that dude is a poacher i right off think the worse an picture what he may be doing an yes some states have some odd laws that mean nothing like here in oklahoma quail hunters for years could not hunt on wednesday or sunday i was a meat cutter an guess what days i had off wed an sun. now a new law you can't shoot a piebald deer because they are holly an forget any chance to come to oklahoma an hunt moose its in the REGS no moose hunting glad i have not run into one lol

RE: pochers??
 

MNBIRDDOG... In other words, your saying if you walked into someone's house and found a murdered dead person (unkowingly) you be held accountable for accomplice to murder? Or maybe get a ticket (ha-ha)

Not sure if you read the post from the beggining?
The confusion seemed to be cleared up, as you can see, other contributers continued with the post.

RE: pochers??
 

If you compared the story in the original post to the your hypothetical, it would have been that you walked into a house with the intention of shooting someone, and walked into the wrong house and shot the wrong person by mistake. In this case, both would usually be illegal, so your hypothetical doesn't really work. Maybe if the original said that either swamp was baited, but that wasn't it. If he had walked into a baited swamp, and found some ducks that had been shot, then called the warden, then he wouldn't have been poaching and that would be like your scenario, but that's not what happened.:eek:

RE: pochers??
 

In life there are 12 types of people, but I believe I'm wrong, I think there are 13 types???
Lawyer, polititician or teenager you decide which one you sound like.....:eek:

As I stated, everyone else seemed to have got the point.
Which brings me to your last response, w.t.h. are you talking about, I guess I'm just dizzy.
Sorry for your/my confussion.

RE: pochers??
 

I think that the point that is being made here is that if someone is supposed to be a poacher even for unknowingly violating a law, thenunknowingly hunting over a baited spot wouldpretty much put one in that category.

RE: pochers??
 

I got the point.
My response is, Murphy's law... Hard tellin' not knowin'.

If we had known it was baited we would have called the gw before we shot, makes sense, right?
Once we figured out the scenario, we acted on it, it really is quite simple.
~ By the way, the game warden commended us on our actions even though we shot!!!!


Is this considered a dead horse yet?

RE: pochers??
 

Interesting scenario is how would you have felt if the game warden had found you all before you knew that the spot was baited and busted all of you? Would you all be poachers?

RE: pochers??
 

i never understand why people poach for the racks