Deer Hunting Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
poaching

Bruce i think you are starting to see and im talking about new york here a backlash against the department of conservation and the state.My license went from 68$ to 100$.People are fed up,this increase was ridiculous as is most of the dec facts or lack there of.People feel with this increase their gonna do what they want.Are doe permits used to be free now they are 10$ apiece whether you get them or not.People are fed up.THis attitiude is not right but i think thats whats reflected in these polls.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,708 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
One of the first things it notes in the poll is the following....

"Early results indicate that 74% of participants believe that to
kill a deer legally for the antlers and not eat it
is a worse moral crime than poaching a deer you will completely consume."



Kinda goes right along with the whole outfitter "Qdm" scenario,
where guys hunt specifically for antlers.
I'm sorry but You'll never convince me that an outfitter plays a positive role in Hunting.

P.S. I didn't create the poll I just posted it to for everyones viewing pleasure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
What is poaching?
You really cannot go by a general definition without some form of ammendments or hypothetical situations.

We covered this a while back and I am very opinionated on this topic. it is not a clean cut question at best. Would I poach this year under the conditions in life that I have right now? NO, I would not.
But take away my income and ability to feed my family or make the state hunting fees absolutly rediculous and I would have a different opinion on the matter. I dont beleive I need to be liscenced to feed myself, I comply because the fees go back into management of the natural resources and are reasonable in cost. When it comes down to obeying the state game laws and starving, the question of poaching takes on a whole different meaning.

these situations aside though, No, Poaching is not acceptable or tolerable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
AMEN bro.If a man cannot afford to go to a grocery store and buy food to feed his familiy then the woods becomes his grocery store.When it comes to that IMHO that is not poaching its servival.And to me that is my right to servive by any means nesassary.Just have to read alittle history going back across the pond when kings,lords what ever they called them selves would not let people hunt in "there woods" and if they were cought it was either prison or death for providing for your familiy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
"Early results indicate that 74% of participants believe that to
kill a deer legally for the antlers and not eat it
is a worse moral crime than poaching a deer you will completely consume."

The first thing my grandpappy taught me about a rifle was safety. The next thing he taught me was that you didn't shoot at something unless it was to put food onto the table or protecting your livestock.

Talking to the guy down at the processing center in town, there are those that come down from the "big city" to hunt on deer leases - primarily to bring back the antlers. They pay to have the deer processed and the antlers 'harvested' while the meat goes to one of the local food banks. At least that way, the meat goes to a good cause.

Me? The meat goes into the freezer and sooner or later ends up on the breakfast/lunch/supper table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
I'm with Bruce on this one. For those of you who say it's OK to kill a deer illegally for food (to fed your family), my question is where do you draw the line? I hope everyone loves and cares for their family, but if it's OK to kill a deer illegally for the family, it should be OK to steal money, shoplift, embezzle, etc. for that purpose. It seems to me that becomes an excuse, especially when a person can legally kill quite a bit of game to eat, and as one of the respondants in the poll said, there are lots of places where really needy families can get assistance, including the Hunters Against Hunger type programs. Years ago, when hunting was more of a necessary sustainence activity and there were no places a hungry family could get help, poaching migh have been seen as being tolerable - even necessary, but today that just isn't the case.
As for killing a deer. or any animal just for the trophy, that doesn't cut it in my book. Most states have laws against wasting the meat from game animals, and if the hunter doesn't want to eat it, he or she should get the meat to someone who will enjoy it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,708 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I'm with Bruce on this one. For those of you who say it's OK to kill a deer illegally for food (to fed your family), my question is where do you draw the line? I hope everyone loves and cares for their family, but if it's OK to kill a deer illegally for the family, it should be OK to steal money, shoplift, embezzle, etc. for that purpose. It seems to me that becomes an excuse, especially when a person can legally kill quite a bit of game to eat, and as one of the respondants in the poll said, there are lots of places where really needy families can get assistance, including the Hunters Against Hunger type programs. Years ago, when hunting was more of a necessary sustainence activity and there were no places a hungry family could get help, poaching migh have been seen as being tolerable - even necessary, but today that just isn't the case.
As for killing a deer. or any animal just for the trophy, that doesn't cut it in my book. Most states have laws against wasting the meat from game animals, and if the hunter doesn't want to eat it, he or she should get the meat to someone who will enjoy it.
Very well said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,220 Posts
True or false?

You believe that to kill a deer legally for the antlers and not eat it is a worse moral crime than poaching a deer you will completely consume.

That 74% thinks trophy hunters are bigger scum bags than poachers is interesting. Somehow it is more palatable to the public to engage in illegal activity as long as you eat the deer than to engage in the legal activity of antler hunting and not eat it.

But when not asked to choose which is worse 85% said that it is not alright to poach to feed the family.

I see it as the public agrees with the tradition of hunting for food but strongly disagrees with the thought of killing for sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,459 Posts
You got it Buckshot.
I remember when schools allowed us to miss for hunting and not count it as a missed day or as in today's school kids can't even make up tests if they go on a hunting trip. As far as the poll goes I'm not much into polls. To all the trophy hunters like the African trips that all the meat is given away so what! My guess is most deer hunters that want to shoot big bucks also eat the meat. One more thing, as long as I have a gun/fishing pole my family would not go hungry even if I couldn't afford the permits. If this disapoints some here sorry. For the record: I'm against poaching for money, antlers, selling the meat, but to feed my family to put food on the table, I'll draw the line and something that swims, flies, or walks is going to be served. When it comes to basic survival, hunter's and fisherman's skills gives us the edge in the food gathering department.
My advise: send the poll to Washington and let the politicians eat it! :w00t:
 
G

·
True or false?

You believe that to kill a deer legally for the antlers and not eat it is a worse moral crime than poaching a deer you will completely consume.

That 74% thinks trophy hunters are bigger scum bags than poachers is interesting. Somehow it is more palatable to the public to engage in illegal activity as long as you eat the deer than to engage in the legal activity of antler hunting and not eat it.

But when not asked to choose which is worse 85% said that it is not alright to poach to feed the family.

I see it as the public agrees with the tradition of hunting for food but strongly disagrees with the thought of killing for sport.
here's where this question is a loaded question. it says "you will completely consume" to me as long as someone, friend, neighbor, food for the hungry, uses the meat then its not a problem to kill a deer if all you want is the antlers. i shot a bear and all i wanted was the hide but before i did i had a home for the meat. is this immoral?

a number of the questions were pointing a toward a perticular answer but at least they did leave a space for comment.
 
G

·
i don't understand this "i'll hunt if my family is starving" thing. if things/I got that down right destitute i wouldn't have a gun to hunt with that would have gone to feed the family long ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
798 Posts
Ronn, sounds like you have your priorities straight, but I doubt that you'd ever have to make that decision. Back to the poll:
"You believe that to kill a deer legally for the antlers and not eat it is a worse moral crime than poaching a deer you will completely consume."
This is a loaded statement right from the get-go. Basically, it is saying that ANY kind of hunting is a moral crime, as the question asked which do you think is "worse" (which implies they are both reprehensible.) As with so many polls, the authors slant the questions to get the results that they want, so what the hell does the poll prove... NOTHING! That's probably why HuntingMan doesn't like polls in the first place. He's too smart to be manipulated by them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
I'm with Bruce on this one. For those of you who say it's OK to kill a deer illegally for food (to fed your family), my question is where do you draw the line? I hope everyone loves and cares for their family, but if it's OK to kill a deer illegally for the family, it should be OK to steal money, shoplift, embezzle, etc. for that purpose. It seems to me that becomes an excuse, especially when a person can legally kill quite a bit of game to eat, and as one of the respondants in the poll said, there are lots of places where really needy families can get assistance, including the Hunters Against Hunger type programs. Years ago, when hunting was more of a necessary sustainence activity and there were no places a hungry family could get help, poaching migh have been seen as being tolerable - even necessary, but today that just isn't the case.
As for killing a deer. or any animal just for the trophy, that doesn't cut it in my book. Most states have laws against wasting the meat from game animals, and if the hunter doesn't want to eat it, he or she should get the meat to someone who will enjoy it.
Wait a minute, you cant say that years ago it was ok, and now it is not. thats hypocrisy. breaking the law is breaking the law.
and as far as the diference between then and now, starvation today feels the same way it did 100 years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
i don't understand this "i'll hunt if my family is starving" thing. if things/I got that down right destitute i wouldn't have a gun to hunt with that would have gone to feed the family long ago.
I dont understand that logic at all. sell a gun for a meal or two, when with it you can provide indefinitly
 
G

·
I dont understand that logic at all. sell a gun for a meal or two, when with it you can provide indefinitly
first of all it would be more than a meal or two more like a week or two. i suppose the logic comes for the old argument is hunting a right or privilege. i said its a privilege afforded us by other hunters, our peers. so one must follow the law even if we disagree with it. if one doesn't like the law work to get it changed. if one doesn't follow the law it says a lot about their morals/ethics.

secondly 100 years ago subsistence hunting was just that. i don't believe there were even licenses back then. we also dumped garbage in the rivers, dammed them, cut darn near every tree down, cooked mercury, raped the land killed animals darn near to the point of extinction. killed indians because they were in the way, all sorts of things that are considered immoral now. i would like to the that we have grown since then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,459 Posts
I think my logic is, in-order to protect my family, which is my job as a father and provider, then I would need certain tools to do the job correctly. This senerio would only happen in a total collapse of sociaty as we know it. Pretty far out there, maybe. I would keep 1 firearm to carry out basic needs/protection. That's what I meant.
Onehorse, you are correct regarding my take on polls, pure garbage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
799 Posts
This senerio would only happen in a total collapse of sociaty as we know it. Pretty far out there, maybe. I would keep 1 firearm to carry out basic needs/protection. QUOTE]

exactly what I have been trying to get across, when you give answers to questions such as this poll, consideration must be given to as many scenarios as posible. even the far out ones.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top