# Hunting > Hunting >  Poaching, let's get this straight

## Wirehunt

From  Poaching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Poaching has traditionally been defined as the illegal hunting, killing or capturing of wild animals, usually associated with land use rights.[1][2][3][4][5] Until the 20th century, mostly impoverished peasants poached for subsistence purposes, thus supplementing a scarce diet.[6] By contrast, stealing domestic animals such as cattle raiding is considered theft, not poaching."

A deer behind a high wire counts as domestic stock, it's raised in that fashion and it traded in that fashion.

----------


## ebf

You got me confused WH (doesn't take much these days  :Grin: )

In the other thread you say that "sensible poaching" is ok ?

What's the difference ?

----------


## R93

> You got me confused WH (doesn't take much these days )
> 
> In the other thread you say that "sensible poaching" is ok ?
> 
> What's the difference ?


Not getting caught?!?!  :Have A Nice Day: 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

----------


## sdogg73

Agreed. So arseholes who trespass to shoot animals on private property should be charged with aggravated burglary and dealt with to the full extent of the law. No different to walking into someone's home with a loaded weapon in my eyes. Its time to tidy this shit up.

----------


## Wirehunt

The problem is theft and poaching are two different thing's, but a lot get it muddled up in NZ.

I've seen it a few times on here when this type of thing happens. Just look at the title of the other thread.
People need to realize they are two very different things.
If I went and whipped half of Dundee's cows what would that be called?

----------


## Wirehunt

> You got me confused WH (doesn't take much these days )
> 
> In the other thread you say that "sensible poaching" is ok ?
> 
> What's the difference ?


You might find this hard to believe, but down here anyway cockies know about the poaching and don't worry about it too much.
That is right up until people start doing fuckwit things, then the game changes a lot.

----------


## ebf

> Not getting caught?!?!


I think that was Neckers's definition Dave  :Grin:  Curious to hear WH's view.

Think he means low fence is ok in his view, high fence not ? Not sure ?

----------


## Dynastar27

> The problem is theft and poaching are two different thing's, but a lot get it muddled up in NZ.
> 
> I've seen it a few times on here when this type of thing happens. Just look at the title of the other thread.
> People need to realize they are two very different things.
> If I went and whipped half of Dundee's cows what would that be called?


Thats theft lol and i think dundee would be hunting ur ass down and if caught you would be come a rug on his floor  :Thumbsup:

----------


## JoshC

> The problem is theft and poaching are two different thing's, but a lot get it muddled up in NZ.
> 
> I've seen it a few times on here when this type of thing happens. Just look at the title of the other thread.
> People need to realize they are two very different things.
> If I went and whipped half of Dundee's cows what would that be called?



Bestiality.

----------


## Shaneo

haha

----------


## Wirehunt

> Think he means low fence is ok in his view, high fence not ? Not sure ?


That's right.

----------


## Toby

> That's right.


That's some mighty fine logic  :36 1 5:

----------


## mikee

> Bestiality.


And I would say the other 1/2 of the cows not so whipped would be standing round the paddock congratulating themselves on how narrow their escape was.


I dont see how a domestic Deer shot in a paddock on private land could be seen as anything other than Theft involving a firearm and dealt with as such.  No different from walking into a bank, shooting someone and leaving with the cash in my mind.  

Unfortunatly because its an animal and not an important person the wet bus tickets will be out again.

----------


## Dundee

> The problem is theft and poaching are two different thing's, but a lot get it muddled up in NZ.
> 
> I've seen it a few times on here when this type of thing happens. Just look at the title of the other thread.
> People need to realize they are two very different things.
> If I went and whipped half of Dundee's cows what would that be called?


I can shoot a 4 inch Target from one side of the ranch to the other.  You would want to be 3inches or less to attempt that Wirehunt :Grin:

----------


## gimp

Semantics aside I don't believe there is any legal offence defined as poaching in Mew Zealand so it's something of a moot point

----------


## BRADS

> I can shoot a 4 inch Target from one side of the ranch to the other.  You would want to be 3inches or less to attempt that Wirehunt


That dos'nt count mate your ranch is tiny :Thumbsup:

----------


## Nathan F

Poaching is theft

----------


## ebf

> Semantics aside I don't believe there is any legal offence defined as poaching in Mew Zealand so it's something of a moot point


What's the charge if they catch someone doing it then ? Illegal hunting ?

----------


## ishoot10s

> If I went and whipped half of Dundee's cows what would that be called?


I believe that would be called "rustling" and that may well still be a capital offence in our laws, these days people are not charged with it, but instead a lesser charge is brought.

----------


## gimp

> What's the charge if they catch someone doing it then ? Illegal hunting ?


Armed trespass? Spotlighting would open you to charges of loaded firearm in a vehicle etc. Shooting/stealing stock I'm unsure. I don't think there's any specific offence directly related to the shooting of a wild animal on private land without permission, rather just being there without permission is the offence.

----------


## Savage1

In this case it would be 'Aggravated Burglary' and 'Using a Firearm to Commit an Offence'. There could be other more specific charges but these are just off the top of my head.

----------


## Savage1

> Armed trespass? Spotlighting would open you to charges of loaded firearm in a vehicle etc. Shooting/stealing stock I'm unsure. I don't think there's any specific offence directly related to the shooting of a wild animal on private land without permission, rather just being there without permission is the offence.


You need to be issued with a trespass notice or verbally trespassed before you can be trespassing. It could easily be 'Unlawfully on Property'. Loaded firearm in a vehicle is a minor offence under one of the Land Transport Acts and only carries a $150 ticket if I remember correctly. Killing stock is Wilful damage at a minimum.

----------


## Savage1

Just found this

Crimes Act 1961 Section 221
Theft of animals
Every one commits theft if he or she kills any animal that is the property of any other person with intent to steal the carcass, skin, or plumage, or any other part, of the animal.

Penalty

Section 223
Punishment of theft
Every one who commits theft is liable as follows:
(a)in the case of any offence against section 220, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years; or
(b)if the value of the property stolen exceeds $1,000, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years; or
(c)if the value of the property stolen exceeds $500 but does not exceed $1,000, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year; or
(d)if the value of the property stolen does not exceed $500, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months.

Learn something new even on holiday, even though the definition of theft covers animals anyway.

----------


## Toby

If a wild animal is on your land does that mean you own it? Is that why you don't need a duck shooting licence if its on your own land?

----------


## 7mmsaum

> If a wild animal is on your land does that mean you own it? Is that why you don't need a duck shooting licence if its on your own land?


Very good question Toby

----------


## Gibo

The crown say they own wild animals, i say no one does

----------


## Gibo

So to take a wild animal with a firearm on private land is tresspassing and?????? No theft involved

----------


## Wirehunt

No you don't Toby, and in fact are required to do something about killing it if it's on the feral list (everything here is)  The only hazy part to that is goats.

----------


## Wirehunt

It's only trespassing when you've had notice served. And that can't be done the first time you are caught.

----------


## Toby

So you're saying hunting on other peoples farms is legal until you get caught and served a trespassing notice so long as you're hunting wild animals when on their land of course. If you were shooting domestic animals it's theft?

----------


## Wirehunt

*I didn't say it was legal*  I said you can't get served until you've had the warnings.

This info has come from cops I've had to deal with cause of arsehole poachers.

----------


## username

This thread is fuckn stupid. If it's not your land keep off it unless you have permission. End of story there are no fuckn grey areas. Any one who purposely hunts on private property with out permission is a CUNT!

----------


## Maca49

Geeze DD you must have a narrow strip of farm? :Thumbsup:

----------


## Maca49

> This thread is fuckn stupid. If it's not your land keep off it unless you have permission. End of story there are no fuckn grey areas. Any one who purposely hunts on private property with out permission is a CUNT!


I think its males mostly doing this without permission so that would be PRICKS or ARSEHOLES? :Thumbsup:  But I agree with you, your either a criminal doing it, or you have the OK.

----------


## square1

People have been redefining things to justify participation since forever. Keep looking for those loopholes eh.

----------


## john m

My understanding was that animals on crown land belong to the crown untill legally shot and then ownership transfers to the shooter. On private land they belong to the land owner and if illegally shot they are still the property of that land owner and he /she can confiscate the carcass from the shooter. Some one will know if this is right.

----------


## gadgetman

> *I didn't say it was legal*  I said you can't get served until you've had the warnings.
> 
> This info has come from cops I've had to deal with cause of arsehole poachers.


Shouldn't that be thieves? Didn't someone start at thread on the difference here somewhere?

----------


## gimp

Nope on private land they still belong to the crown until killed, at which point ownership transfers to the person that killed it, unless killed unlawfully (eg on private land with no permission).

Wild animals control act whenever, whatever section

----------


## gimp

I've gotta start hitting quote

----------


## gadgetman

> This thread is fuckn stupid. If it's not your land keep off it unless you have permission. End of story there are no fuckn grey areas. Any one who purposely hunts on private property with out permission is a CUNT!


There is unfortunately a BIG grey area. Someone may be on your land for a legitimate reason, come to ask permission, come to deliver something, etc.

----------


## Nathan F

> This thread is fuckn stupid. If it's not your land keep off it unless you have permission. End of story there are no fuckn grey areas. Any one who purposely hunts on private property with out permission is a CUNT!


Agreed. Why do we even have to have  a thread like this on here? If its not yours or you dont have permission to be there leave it alone. Pretty simple.

----------


## Dundee

Might want to change your avatar Wirehunt you fukn poacher :Thumbsup:

----------


## username

:Grin:

----------


## Wirehunt

I've been one for years  Dundee.  Although I don't bother with farmland.   Only the forests we actually own, then some fuckwits leased out.   A shame they didn't do a bit more thinking before doing that.  

And before you lot get on those 30 hand high horses, those same forest companies have been known to repeatedly illegally close roads, goose-gander thing. Fuck em.  If a road has a public easement on it then it is meant to be open the hours of daylight for the public to use.  Two wrongs wank wank wank.

----------


## Wirehunt

> Might want to change your avatar Wirehunt you fukn poacher



What to Dundee?

----------


## Dundee

> What to Dundee?


 :Grin: ......

----------


## Gibo

Looks like some bum fluff caught on that bottom wire  :Grin:

----------


## Dundee

> Looks like some bum fluff caught on that bottom wire


poachers nut fluff :Thumbsup:

----------


## Wirehunt

If I had the money I'd nip us and whip those girlfriends your about to kill from under your snout.   :Grin:

----------


## antferny

Ive got an 8 acre "life style" block in the middle of some good scrub an farm land . Ive had deer on here before and Ive contemplated shooting them and still am. Every time I see the farmers who own the surrounding land Im asked Have you seen MY deer and you wouldn't shoot MY deer would you. Im thinking if they they jump that 8 wire fence and eat my grass then mabey I will.it just seems as  if its seen on there land its theres forever . Im not condoning poaching and this maybe a little of track of this thread but Ive realise that Venison seems to make people a little crazy. Bring on Duck shooting I say.

----------


## 308

Welcome to the forum antferny; and for those who say that this thread is pointless I'd say that I've learned some new things so that helped.

Also I think Wirehunt likes to yank people's chains just a bit, or am I stating the bleeding obvious?

----------


## gadgetman

> Looks like some bum fluff caught on that bottom wire


Well the bottom wire would be about the right height for Dundee, but isn't it a little unusual to use barbed wire that low?

----------


## Wirehunt

Works good on keeping pigs out.

----------


## Dundee

> Well the bottom wire would be about the right height for Dundee, but isn't it a little unusual to use barbed wire that low?


Some of us duck :Grin:

----------


## gadgetman

> Works good on keeping pigs out.


I was surprised at how they just run through fences. Was hoping to go after some this weekend. Country is a bit hilly and wont be much good trying to get around it in this weather. That and Hurunui District is a bloody long way on a pushbike, especially coming back with a pig on the shoulders.

----------


## Dundee

> I was surprised at how they just run through fences. Was hoping to go after some this weekend. Country is a bit hilly and wont be much good trying to get around it in this weather. That and Hurunui District is a bloody long way on a pushbike, especially coming back with a pig on the shoulders.



Anything is possible Gadgetman :Thumbsup:

----------


## Rushy

> Ive got an 8 acre "life style" block in the middle of some good scrub an farm land . Ive had deer on here before and Ive contemplated shooting them and still am. Every time I see the farmers who own the surrounding land Im asked Have you seen MY deer and you wouldn't shoot MY deer would you. Im thinking if they they jump that 8 wire fence and eat my grass then mabey I will.it just seems as  if its seen on there land its theres forever . Im not condoning poaching and this maybe a little of track of this thread but Ive realise that Venison seems to make people a little crazy. Bring on Duck shooting I say.


Welcome to the forum. If the deer hasn't got any ear tags then I would declare open season while it is on your land..

----------


## Rushy

> Anything is possible Gadgetman
> 
> Attachment 23049


Where there is a will there is a way.

----------


## petree

What about taking a short cut across a farm to a place u are aloud to hunt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## kawekakid

> Agreed. So arseholes who trespass to shoot animals on private property should be charged with aggravated burglary and dealt with to the full extent of the law. No different to walking into someone's home with a loaded weapon in my eyes. Its time to tidy this shit up.


But if the Law is also doing the poaching as seen on camera and others poaching pigs in Opotiki by law from outside the area  when does it stop . If you expect people to follow the law don't do it yourself . RE the law

----------


## Sidney

> Agreed. So arseholes who trespass to shoot animals on private property should be charged with aggravated burglary and dealt with to the full extent of the law. No different to walking into someone's home with a loaded weapon in my eyes. Its time to tidy this shit up.


There is no such thing as aggravated burglary, and clearly there is a huge difference between carrying a loaded weapon into a home and carrying it across open space.

Clearly there is also a difference between shooting wild animals on private land and stealing domestic stock on private land..

If you don't understand the differences, perhaps less opinion would be appropriate...  it is patently obvious that most don't understand the law..

----------


## moonhunt

Easter brings out the dickheads around here, although they have had an early start this year, we have had several incidents already in the last few weeks

----------


## sdogg73

> But if the Law is also doing the poaching as seen on camera and others poaching pigs in Opotiki by law from outside the area  when does it stop . If you expect people to follow the law don't do it yourself . RE the law


And here in lies the problem. Because some of the worst offenders are police very little is done when reported. I never have and never will shoot private land without permission. I have clients on the verge of getting "nasty" with people caught on their land and keeping the law out of it, Which is going to open up a whole other can of worms.

----------


## sdogg73

> There is no such thing as aggravated burglary, and clearly there is a huge difference between carrying a loaded weapon into a home and carrying it across open space.
> 
> Clearly there is also a difference between shooting wild animals on private land and stealing domestic stock on private land..
> 
> If you don't understand the differences, perhaps less opinion would be appropriate...  it is patently obvious that most don't understand the law..


New Zealand Crimes Act 1961-232. Look it up.
And in my eyes there is no difference in where you carry a loaded firearm in relation to this, a farm is someone's home and workplace. Would you feel safe with some muppet sneaking around and wondering am I going to catch a stray round anytime soon. 
Illegal access is illegal access. Just because its a feral animal you can't legally take it from private property.
Less opinion would be appropriate.

----------


## Wirehunt

Except your wrong dogg, laws have been changed since then.

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

> New Zealand Crimes Act 1961-232. Look it up..


As sdogg73 has said.............

*232Aggravated burglary*(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who,—(a)while committing burglary, has a weapon with him or her or uses any thing as a weapon; or(b)having committed burglary, has a weapon with him or her, or uses any thing as a weapon, while still in the building or ship.
(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who is armed with a weapon with intent to commit burglary.

and the link................

*Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 19 August 2013), Public Act 232 Aggravated burglary &ndash; New Zealand Legislation*

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

> Except your wrong dogg, laws have been changed since then.


The changes not included in my link to the consolidated act are not relevant to sdogg73' point.  They are 
*Amendments not yet added*The most recent version of this Act excludes amendments that are not yet in force from:Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013Financial Markets (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2013

----------


## sdogg73

> Except your wrong dogg, laws have been changed since then.


From what I read it was amended 2013 but is still law. If I got lost in the jargon and am wrong I'll take it on the chin. I'll vehemently defend everything else I've stated.

----------


## moonhunt

What about this Kiwi Sapper

And on conviction one could be deemed unfit to hold a FAL

49 Using, discharging, or carrying certain firearms except for some lawful, proper, or sufficient purpose


(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose, uses, discharges, or carries anywhere any firearm of the kind known as—

(a) a bolt gun or a stud gun:


(b) a humane killer:


(c) a tranquilliser gun:


(d) a stock marking pistol:


(e) an underwater spear gun:


(f) a flare pistol:


(g) a deer net gun:


(h) a pistol that is part of rocket or line throwing equipment:


(i) a miniature cannon.



(2) In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in which it is proved that the defendant used, discharged, or carried a firearm of a kind described in that subsection, the burden of proving the existence of some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose shall lie on the defendant.

Section 49(1): amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).

----------


## moonhunt

No this one.... poaching is not a lawful reason 

45 Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose


(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose,—

(a) carries; or


(b) is in possession of—


any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive.


(2) In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in which it is proved that the defendant was carrying or in possession of any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive, as the case may require, the burden of proving the existence of some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose shall lie on the defendant.

Compare: 1958 No 21 s 16(1), (3)

Section 45(1): amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).

Section 45(1): amended, on 1 November 1992, by section 23(1) of the Arms Amendment Act 1992 (1992 No 95).

Section 45(2): amended, on 8 March 1985, by section 2 of the Arms Amendment Act 1985 (1985 No 5).

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

> ......................if I got lost in the jargon and am wrong I'll take it on the chin. I'll vehemently defend everything else I've stated.


I agree entirely with your sentiments and mention that IMHO, the Wild Animal Control Act also supports you. A link to an appropriate section……….

*Wild Animal Control Act 1977 No 111 (as at 28 November 2013), Public Act 9 Ownership of wild animals &ndash; New Zealand Legislation*

*In particular section 3 a* 

(3)The taking or killing of any wild animal shall be deemed to be unlawful where any person takes or kills the animal—
·         (a)while he is on any land without the express authority of the owner or occupier or authority in control of the land,
which of course presumes that you are the owner and have not issued “express authority.”and of course subsections 3 b and d

·         (b) by any unlawful means while he is lawfully on any land; or…
·          (d) by discharging a firearm into or over or across any land without the authority of the owner or occupier or authority in control of the land.

----------


## Gibo

Look at you cut and pasters go  :Grin:

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

> What about this Kiwi Sapper...................


Sorry moonhunt but I don't understand your perspective as it adds further legislative penalties and support for that which is the majority opinion (including mine ) here.

Am I missing a perspective?

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

> Look at you cut and pasters go


Cracker fun 'tho ain't it..............BUT far better than the too oft used  "I was told once by a mate" or "I once read it on a lavatory wall. that...."

----------


## moonhunt

I don't understand myself either  :Grin: 

Basically if someone is on your land without permission be it shooting cans /stock or wild animals they are committing an offence  or even just being on your land without permission with a firearm

----------


## moonhunt

I don't understand myself either  :Grin: 

Basically if someone is on your land without permission be it shooting cans /stock or wild animals they are committing an offence  or even just being on your land without permission with a firearm

Poaching is too broad it does not cover all aspects

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

No argument with that. The only point of possible confusion IMHO is when it comes to deciding which piece of legislation to nail the bastards with..............fortunately, we now have a quite a "cunt 'n paste" selection displayed in this thread to assist Constable Plod in making that decision. And there is more not yet pasted. See the 2 as yet non consolidated amendments to the Crimes Act.

----------


## moonhunt

I am now armed with the knowledge of Section 45

----------


## Gibo

> I am now armed with the knowledge of Section 45


If you are armed in that section you may be imprisoned!  :Psmiley:   :Grin:

----------


## moonhunt

I do have a license for my small amount of knowledge  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Sidney

> New Zealand Crimes Act 1961-232. Look it up.
> And in my eyes there is no difference in where you carry a loaded firearm in relation to this, a farm is someone's home and workplace. Would you feel safe with some muppet sneaking around and wondering am I going to catch a stray round anytime soon. 
> Illegal access is illegal access. Just because its a feral animal you can't legally take it from private property.
> Less opinion would be appropriate.


Here are the facts...

Burglary is the breaking and entering of a building with intent to commit a crime therein...  there is no such thing as aggravated burglary...

Aggravated assault and aggravated robbery are different and separate charges which may provide the intent for the separate charge of burglary.  There is no such thing as aggravated theft.

You cannot commit burglary without a building...(or in some case law, other established structures)  people are charged with two offences usually, burglary and theft, burglary and assault, burglars and ag robbery etc.. the later offence is mostly required to establish the intent required by law for the charge of burglary to be established.

You cannot commit burglary on land.

I don't give a stuff what your eyes say should be the case...  the law says different and thankfully it is more appropriate than your opinion...  if you can't tell the difference, at least the law can...

Illegal access is not an offence.... trespass is the term you are looking for... and basically you only trespass after having been told to leave and you fail to do so.

There are other offences associated with firearms and property which do apply...  you cannot shoot across private property without permission for example, and as pointed out earlier wild animals belong to the crown until lawfully taken.  Kind of makes it hard to claim ownership of a wild animal having shot it unlawfully...

Emotive opinion has no place in this discussion and particularly when backed up with little knowledge of the law.... I think most are out of their depth judging by what I  have seen written so far..

----------


## Sidney

Whoops..

just checked the Ag burglary... provisions provisions in more recent Ammendments..... however still relates to buildings etc as other comments....

----------


## gadgetman

> Anything is possible Gadgetman
> 
> Attachment 23049


I suspect he isn't travelling 200km like that and seems to be missing his rifle and the rest of his kit.

----------


## Dundee

This somes it up nicely!! :Grin:

----------


## gadgetman

I can see the classic defence for a bloke caught carrying his firearm on someone else's land. "I went looking for the farmer to ask permission and the rules state that I'm not allowed to leave a firearm in an unattended vehicle." Would this be a lawful purpose to be there? I think it would only be up to this point that the 'visitor' can be trespassed.

----------


## BRADS

This is one waste of space thread.
The farm is my place of work, one of our family farms is rather heavily poached by all sorts of people.
No one really cares. Not long ago I was fencing in the mist on a scrubby face when I looked up the hill two see a couple of guys crossing the fence I was working on they didn't even see me, but it scared the crap out of me.
I really can't see the difference between guys coming onto the farm and smoking a deer  than me say going into your town section while your at home walking a round with a loaded gun and the blowing away your family dog leaving the guts on the lawn and buggering of after shooting some holes in your mailbox.
Against the law?? Who cares wrong without permission hell yes :Have A Nice Day: 
Just my view on this stupid thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## square1

> Illegal access is not an offence.... trespass is the term you are looking for... and basically you only trespass after having been told to leave and you fail to do so.


Is it trespassing if there is a sign saying that you can't be there without permission? Or does someone have to catch you and verbally ask you to leave?

----------


## Wirehunt

Once he/she has had the warnings.   People seem to be struggling with this part.

----------


## GravelBen

> I can see the classic defence for a bloke caught carrying his firearm on someone else's land. "I went looking for the farmer to ask permission and the rules state that I'm not allowed to leave a firearm in an unattended vehicle." Would this be a lawful purpose to be there? I think it would only be up to this point that the 'visitor' can be trespassed.


Better not have the firearm loaded or in a 'ready to use' position while looking to ask permission then!  :Wink:

----------


## gadgetman

> Better not have the firearm loaded or in a 'ready to use' position while looking to ask permission then!


Exacaterry.

----------


## Wirehunt

I do love the self righteous around here.

I hope you always remember to update your doc permit.
I hope you never have a dead duck land over a fence or an animal take off over one.

A eye opener.  Every cockie I've worked for has told me if I'm onto animals and they go over a fence to chase them down...

----------


## kiwijames

> Is it trespassing if there is a sign saying that you can't be there without permission? Or does someone have to catch you and verbally ask you to leave?


As far as I understand I can trespass you today. I don't have to know you, or even have any reason for doing so. I can trespass you even if you are in another island from me. 

Weren't the cops doing blanket trespass in Southland on people on certain country roads?

----------


## EeeBees

I like the story (true) about the people who were on a farmer's land collecting field mushrooms...he followed them all the way back to town then proceeded to take fruit off a tree in their garden...the guy went ballistic and threatened to ring the police...the farmer said now you know what it feels like; all you needed to do was to come and ask me.

This whole subject is highly emotive...none of us like to find people uninvited near our property whatever their intent.  We are all naturally enough jumpy about unknown personages with firearms on and in anyone's property, or unknown personages without firearms for that matter.  

The peasants of yesteryear who poached or snared animals to augment their diets were if caught mostly sent to the colony of Australia for the duration of their natural life.   One rabbit for a stew...

----------


## kiwigreen

I'd shoot off technical 'private property' that's bordering doc land bur not too far in.

----------


## big_foot

> I'd shoot off technical 'private property' that's bordering doc land bur not too far in.


Whats so technical about it, if your knowingly on private property with a firearm an without permission, regardless of how close to doc land you are, your pushing the boundary of being "fit and proper".

The only excuse in my opinion would be pursuing a wounded animal.

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

As a recent poster said

"......Emotive opinion has no place in this discussion and particularly when backed up with little knowledge of the law.... I think most are out of their depth judging by what I have seen written so far.." 

and judging from their last "whoops" post, I can only agree.Today, 10:39 AM

----------


## EeeBees

I think that is unfair criticism...and as this thread has proven, the matter is a pretty shade of grey...writing that, everyone darn well knows if they are on land they have no permission to be on...what would DOC do if one of their kind found you on a block you had no permit for...or had no FAL but a rifle with a full mag.

----------


## BRADS

If anything this thread has proven to me it's that a lot of you "jump the fence" and then wonder why you meet grumpy farmers at road ends :Sad: 
The division between those of us that try and make a living from the land and the town people grows bigger.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Alpinehunter0

> Semantics aside I don't believe there is any legal offence defined as poaching in Mew Zealand so it's something of a moot point


How about trespassing with a firearm.........doesn't take much to ask and generally they will either let you on or give you a good reason for not......either way its their land their livelihood and they don't need any dipshits with guns shooting stock or each other. I also posted on the other poaching thread re this matter. As I recently had a run in with some folks who thought it was their god given right to be where they were. Courts thought different

----------


## PerazziSC3

Yeah i agree BRADS, with everyone looking up specific rules and regs and trying to be judge judy thinking they no all it will only lead to more people thinking they can get away with it....

If its not your property, dont go on it. end of story. doesnt matter if you have a gun or not, you shouldnt be there....

----------


## Sidney

> Is it trespassing if there is a sign saying that you can't be there without permission? Or does someone have to catch you and verbally ask you to leave?


To be really honest I am not sure that a sign is sufficient.  What I do know is that trespass is not completed until  you have been warned to leave and failed to do so.  I would think that you would have to establish that the sign had been seen, that the contents of the warning on the sign were legally sufficient to constitute a legal warning.  The "trespassers will be prosecuted" sign is not legally sufficient to met the legal requirements of notice.

There are other offences when firearms are involved when it comes to being unlawfully on private property... as pointed out by others...

Brad...

In so far as this thread may educate some about their legal responsibilities or rights it is not a waste of time.  Provided of course we concentrate on the facts and not the emotional opinion....  and to be honest the emotion appears to be mostly from a landowner perspective...

I take your point about about mushrooms and apples.  I would also make the point that a lot of people are a lot more precious these days than they used to be about such things.  It may have always been technically wrong to jump the fence for a few mushrooms, but in the past few worried about it and we are the poorer for being so indignant now.

People also keep harping on about the similarities regarding private property whilst ignoring the very obvious differences.. it is not the same for the simple reason of proximity.  Wandering around my 800 square meter section with a firearm in a built up residential area, is entirely different to some furtive poacher sneaking around your back paddock trying not to attract your attention whilst in the pursuit of a wild animal that does not belong to you.

That being said it is illegal to do so... if you wish to take that risk, to potentially lose your firearms licence, to be convicted of an offence with firearms which may affect your travel plans and immigrant status for other countries, then I guess you can.... personally I would think that it may not be worth the risk...

----------


## Sidney

> As a recent poster said
> 
> "......Emotive opinion has no place in this discussion and particularly when backed up with little knowledge of the law.... I think most are out of their depth judging by what I have seen written so far.." 
> 
> and judging from their last "whoops" post, I can only agree.Today, 10:39 AM


And you look like a dick in your photo....   :Grin: 

The thing about that amendment is that is very recent... and I did attempt to edit my post immediately which I cannot do... hence my whoops...

The pertinent fact still was that burglary either way still relates to buildings not land... did you miss that bit?

----------


## BRADS

> To be really honest I am not sure that a sign is sufficient.  What I do know is that trespass is not completed until  you have been warned to leave and failed to do so.  I would think that you would have to establish that the sign had been seen, that the contents of the warning on the sign were legally sufficient to constitute a legal warning.  The "trespassers will be prosecuted" sign is not legally sufficient to met the legal requirements of notice.
> 
> There are other offences when firearms are involved when it comes to being unlawfully on private property... as pointed out by others...
> 
> Brad...
> 
> In so far as this thread may educate some about their legal responsibilities or rights it is not a waste of time.  Provided of course we concentrate on the facts and not the emotional opinion....  and to be honest the emotion appears to be mostly from a landowner perspective...
> 
> I take your point about about mushrooms and apples.  I would also make the point that a lot of people are a lot more precious these days than they used to be about such things.  It may have always been technically wrong to jump the fence for a few mushrooms, but in the past few worried about it and we are the poorer for being so indignant now.
> ...


I didn't want two post on this retarded thread again but.......you made me bite.
It no wonder farmers are more (precious) these days,  20 years ago  stock wasn't getting shot by fucktards that cant find a deer!
Not that long ago a local framer at a popular road end had the shit kicked out off him by hunters who had left a gate open on his farm.
As for your last statement about me wondering around your town section with a gun, how is that any  different two you wondering around my farm when I'm out there with my family?

----------


## GravelBen

> As for your last statement about me wondering around your town section with a gun, how is that any  different two you wondering around my farm when I'm out there with my family?


Go and shoot some hedgehogs in his garden, they are unwanted pests after all!

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

> I think that is unfair criticism...


I hear your comment and respect your right to make it and surely, that is one of the purposes of this site. 

However, in this instance, please recollect that this thread has had a number of posts, many containing links to facts on the law of the land as opposed to hearsay. Despite these facts being readily displayed, a poster chose to sail in, apparently without reading the earlier posts and then give another  "opinion," which was quickly clearly incorrect and when having to retract it subsequently resorted to personal abuse.

Of course,  I ignore both the abuse and the poster, but I am concerned that I may have offended you, a long term contributor to the site and accordingly ask that if you feel I have been unfair, to explain in what way?
Thank You.

----------


## Sidney

> I didn't want two post on this retarded thread again but.......you made me bite.
> It no wonder farmers are more (precious) these days,  20 years ago  stock wasn't getting shot by fucktards that cant find a deer!
> Not that long ago a local framer at a popular road end had the shit kicked out off him by hunters who had left a gate open on his farm.
> As for your last statement about me wondering around your town section with a gun, how is that any  different two you wondering around my farm when I'm out there with my family?


Do you understand the word proximately?

Statistically you would be in more danger crossing the street in Christchurch...

By the way, you don't have higher ground in this discussion, I have been a farmer and landowner as well as a few other things whilst currently a townie...

There is no justification for shooting stock, damaging property or assaulting people - but we aren't talking about poachers now are we now... we are talking about criminals...

It may be convenient for you to lump all together, but I would wager you never see most poachers, cause they don't wannabe seen... they don't damage your property, kill your stock or assault you...

It would seem to me, that the "increase in poaching"? coincides with increasing interest in hunting and reducing access to private property, because farmers now tend to view wild animals that they do not own, as a resource.

It would also seem to me that landowners are more indignant (because of their perception of ownership) about all this, and because they spend most of their time talking to themselves and not developing communication skills, they may not tend to engage particularly well with small bands of scruffy men carrying firearms.  From a past life, a place of self righteousness and authority is no substitute for well developed communication skills, particularly when those you are dealing with may well lack in these areas as well.

If you think I lack empathy with the issues, you are mistaken and yes we need to deal with the idiots.... there are plenty of laws to do that... but a lot less paranoia is a better solution than a lot more...  we don't want to turn into americans...

----------


## ebf

Mate, you've had a past run-in with Sidney involving some cut-and-paste legal "opinion" of your own, not so ?

I'll be honest and say that the moment I saw your post, my first thought was, aah - the curmudgeon is having a go  :Grin: 

Pity this thread is turning personal, coz it is pretty interesting, both from a technical legal side, as well as showing the different views of farmers, hunters, townies and the occasional fukn poacher  :Wink:

----------


## PerazziSC3

@Sidney it doesnt matter if the farm owner thinks he owns the animal or not, who cares, its just a deer or pig or whatever. Its the fact that some arrogant prick has come onto the farmers land that he has put his life into (financially and time) and basically treated the farmer with no respect at all. Even leaving footprints in the farmers mud is more than should be left! They shouldnt be there.

Its just the general lack of curtosy and manners that i think really pisses the farmer off. Its his land.

----------


## BRADS

> Do you understand the word proximately?
> 
> Statistically you would be in more danger crossing the street in Christchurch...
> 
> By the way, you don't have higher ground in this discussion, I have been a farmer and landowner as well as a few other things whilst currently a townie...
> 
> There is no justification for shooting stock, damaging property or assaulting people - but we aren't talking about poachers now are we now... we are talking about criminals...
> 
> It may be convenient for you to lump all together, but I would wager you never see most poachers, cause they don't wannabe seen... they don't damage your property, kill your stock or assault you...
> ...


Let's just agree two to disagree :Have A Nice Day: 
And keep this forum the great place it is.
You are right I'm a simple farmer with zero communication skills.
And often really struggle to say what I want how I want
I lump them all together cause to me there all the same. We often catch/see poachers, 
I think if you think your not being watched these days your wrong. Going back a few weeks I caught a guy just on dark on a rainy Sunday night he thought he'd have the place two himself, he go the fright of his life :Have A Nice Day: 
I don't no any farmers who view the wild animals as a resource most still would rather that grass for there stock, but the ones with a problem would rather pay a chopper crew than open it up two the public

From a simple mans view PerazziSC3 has summed it end of story :Have A Nice Day: 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Savage1

> Here are the facts...
> 
> Burglary is the breaking and entering of a building with intent to commit a crime therein...  there is no such thing as aggravated burglary...
> 
> Aggravated assault and aggravated robbery are different and separate charges which may provide the intent for the separate charge of burglary.  There is no such thing as aggravated theft.
> 
> You cannot commit burglary without a building...(or in some case law, other established structures)  people are charged with two offences usually, burglary and theft, burglary and assault, burglars and ag robbery etc.. the later offence is mostly required to establish the intent required by law for the charge of burglary to be established.
> 
> You cannot commit burglary on land.
> ...


Well I'm not sure how I managed to charge a teenager last month for Aggravated Burglary if it doesn't exist?! I guess he pleaded guilty to a charge that doesn't exist. 

Burglary includes entering ships and enclosed yards, I would argue that a paddock with deer fencing around it is an enclosed yard.

Offenders aren't charged with two offences such as theft and burglary if they broke into a house and stole a TV, I don't know where you got that from but it's incorrect. 

You can commit burglary on land, I've charged a person for it because he stole items from a fenced back yard.

Illegal access is an offence, it's called 'Unlawfully on Property' under the Summary Offences Act. Trespass is for when a warning has been issued in the past two years.

You need to make sure you know what you're talking about before accusing others of being wrong. Keep up the research but seek a little guidance on some of these things, from my small amount of experience I've learn't the law can be quite tricky to interpret.

----------


## Sidney

> I hear your comment and respect your right to make it and surely, that is one of the purposes of this site. 
> 
> However, in this instance, please recollect that this thread has had a number of posts, many containing links to facts on the law of the land as opposed to hearsay. Despite these facts being readily displayed, a poster chose to sail in, apparently without reading the earlier posts and then give another  "opinion," which was quickly clearly incorrect and when having to retract it subsequently resorted to personal abuse.
> 
> Of course,  I ignore both the abuse and the poster, but I am concerned that I may have offended you, a long term contributor to the site and accordingly ask that if you feel I have been unfair, to explain in what way?
> Thank You.


Just so you know... the cut and pastes do not show while you are responding to a post with a quote, this was done over a period of time and so I was not privy to that posted material before I hit the transmit button.  Also as mentioned once the post was sent I could then see the intervening posts and I attempted to modify immediately by edit, not being able to achieve that added another corrective post.  Given my immediate retraction, you still considered it appropriate to be a smart arse?  And thats not unfair?

I could have checked the legislation before being so arbitrary, but thought it to have been a pretty safe call, given my experience and my current time commitments.. and as pointed pointed out it is a very recent amendment, having never existed previously. What I was incorrect about, was only one element of what I contributed, and had no application to the issue as I have pointed out..

If the photo is of yourself Mr Sapper, I do apologise.... I have assumed that it was an image selected for its meaning, hence my flippant remark...  an attempt to lighten rather than insult...

----------


## Dundee

Wow there is 22 viewing this thread I'm going to look at whats out tonight as you people aren't, so I will be safe :Grin:

----------


## Wirehunt

> The division between those of us that try and make a living from the land
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeh, I tried that.  The cockies didn't play the game, but that's another shitfight   :Grin:  :Grin:  :Grin:  :Grin:

----------


## moonhunt

Go the 'Blues'

----------


## Sidney

> Well I'm not sure how I managed to charge a teenager last month for Aggravated Burglary if it doesn't exist?! I guess he pleaded guilty to a charge that doesn't exist. 
> 
> Burglary includes entering ships and enclosed yards, I would argue that a paddock with deer fencing around it is an enclosed yard.
> 
> Offenders aren't charged with two offences such as theft and burglary if they broke into a house and stole a TV, I don't know where you got that from but it's incorrect. 
> 
> You can commit burglary on land, I've charged a person for it because he stole items from a fenced back yard.
> 
> Illegal access is an offence, it's called 'Unlawfully on Property' under the Summary Offences Act. Trespass is for when a warning has been issued in the past two years.
> ...



Your a patronising wee chap aren't you... did you miss my retraction re Agg burglary the very next post... 

Did you miss also "You cannot commit burglary without a building...(or in some case law, other established structures)".... the point is that you need structure and it doesn't extend to farm paddocks in case law at this point as you should well know.

So an offender only gets charged with burglary if he breaks and enters and then assaults someone..  ??  I know this because I have arrested and charged people for exactly that.  Often times and extra charge of theft is not used, but it depends on the circumstances....  The second offence helps to establish the evidence of intent for the first charge of burglary....  yes it is possible to charge someone with burglary without a second offence if you can establish to the court that the intent was there, but it is harder to do.... consider the drunk wanting somewhere to sleep... no intent - not burglary.. intentional damage  ... unlawfully on property possibly...

There is no offence of Illegal Access, yes there is an offence of being Unlawfully on Property... what is your point...?


I think you need to keep up your research, and seek a little guidance cause the law is a bit tricky you know....

----------


## Sidney

> @Sidney it doesnt matter if the farm owner thinks he owns the animal or not, who cares, its just a deer or pig or whatever. Its the fact that some arrogant prick has come onto the farmers land that he has put his life into (financially and time) and basically treated the farmer with no respect at all. Even leaving footprints in the farmers mud is more than should be left! They shouldnt be there.
> 
> Its just the general lack of curtosy and manners that i think really pisses the farmer off. Its his land.



Absolutely... and again I am not condoning trespass....

----------


## Savage1

> Your a patronising wee chap aren't you... did you miss my retraction re Agg burglary the very next post... 
> 
> Did you miss also "You cannot commit burglary without a building...(or in some case law, other established structures)".... the point is that you need structure and it doesn't extend to farm paddocks in case law at this point as you should well know.
> 
> So an offender only gets charged with burglary if he breaks and enters and then assaults someone..  ??  I know this because I have arrested and charged people for exactly that.  Often times and extra charge of theft is not used, but it depends on the circumstances....  The second offence helps to establish the evidence of intent for the first charge of burglary....  yes it is possible to charge someone with burglary without a second offence if you can establish to the court that the intent was there, but it is harder to do.... consider the drunk wanting somewhere to sleep... no intent - not burglary.. intentional damage  ... unlawfully on property possibly...
> 
> There is no offence of Illegal Access, yes there is an offence of being Unlawfully on Property... what is your point...?
> 
> 
> I think you need to keep up your research, and seek a little guidance cause the law is a bit tricky you know....


So what is the case law that states that a paddock isn't an enclosed yard? I don't recall any but I'm not right up to date with it.

How long ago did you last lay two informations for a burglary that involved a theft? In theory it is what should happen but it doesn't, it sure isn't the norm in our district. Assaults are treated differently as they obviously have to be.  

Laying another charge isn't needed for 'evidence'.

A drunk wanting to sleep somewhere, not even unlawfully on property.

I was merely pointing out that Trespass isn't the 'be all, end all' and a warning doesn't have to be given before somebody is committing an offence.

I wasn't intending to be patronizing but now that I read it back I can see how it could be taken the wrong way, but you did have a number of flaws in your post and a condescending overtone.

----------


## Sidney

> So what is the case law that states that a paddock isn't an enclosed yard? I don't recall any but I'm not right up to date with it.
> 
> How long ago did you last lay two informations for a burglary that involved a theft? In theory it is what should happen but it doesn't, it sure isn't the norm in our district. Assaults are treated differently as they obviously have to be.  
> 
> Laying another charge isn't needed for 'evidence'. 
> 
> A drunk wanting to sleep somewhere, not even unlawfully on property.
> 
> I was merely pointing out that Trespass isn't the 'be all, end all' and a warning doesn't have to be given before somebody is committing an offence.
> ...


The flaw was the Agg Burglary... as was retracted... prior to you correcting me.  The rest no sorry... no flaws..

Case law has not extended to cover famers paddocks with regard to burglary... otherwise you would be charging people with burglary for stock theft... it doesn't have to be stated in case law that it doesn't apply for it not to apply...  existing case law in reference to buildings and structures would indicate that it would be unlikely to apply, so it hasn't been attempted to my knowledge...

A scenario... offender enters "secure" yard( Jumps fence, breaks into shed but takes items from yard) charged with burglary of shed, but theft from yard.  The theft from yard would indicate/confirm intention when he B&E the shed.

Other charges can be indicative of intent and are often used in that way...  I haven't suggested that a charge of burglary cannot be established without additional charges..

U/L On Property with a drunk... I did say possibly and yes he would have a defence if he could establish a lack of intent.. if he broke into a shed however for that purpose causing damage then ???

Unlawfully on Property would not apply to farmers paddocks...  I would suggest.. no building no secure yard etc....

What flaws?

----------


## PerazziSC3

> The flaw was the Agg Burglary... as was retracted... prior to you correcting me.  The rest no sorry... no flaws..
> 
> Case law has not extended to cover famers paddocks with regard to burglary... otherwise you would be charging people with burglary for stock theft... it doesn't have to be stated in case law that it doesn't apply for it not to apply...  existing case law in reference to buildings and structures would indicate that it would be unlikely to apply, so it hasn't been attempted to my knowledge...
> 
> A scenario... offender enters "secure" yard( Jumps fence, breaks into shed but takes items from yard) charged with burglary of shed, but theft from yard.  The theft from yard would indicate/confirm intention when he B&E the shed.
> 
> Other charges can be indicative of intent and are often used in that way...  I haven't suggested that a charge of burglary cannot be established without additional charges..
> 
> U/L On Property with a drunk... I did say possibly and yes he would have a defence if he could establish a lack of intent.. if he broke into a shed however for that purpose causing damage then ???
> ...


you seem to no an awful lot about this jazz sidney, are you a lawyer if you dont mind me asking?

----------


## Gapped axe

too pisst tu read l[owook out tomorrow w

----------


## Gapped axe

wstf

----------


## Sidney

> you seem to no an awful lot about this jazz sidney, are you a lawyer if you dont mind me asking?


Almost but not quite... 3rd year, but 10 years police in an earlier life... as well as farming - must have ADHD..   :Grin:

----------


## R93

> Almost but not quite... 3rd year, but 10 years police in an earlier life... as well as farming - must have ADHD..


Cop to a lawyer? You dirty bugger!
Good luck mate you will know all the tricks then?!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

----------


## Dundee

Lost an animal tonight  :Pissed Off:  Was hunting on my land.  The bugger went over the fence or under :Wtfsmilie: 

Anyway too keep things legal rifle was left on my side of the fence while I looked for it as I have a knife. :Wink:   I'm still pissed off but lost the trail of blood. Searched on the other side for an hour,now I'm a fukn poacher :Psmiley:

----------


## gadgetman

> Lost an animal tonight  Was hunting on my land.  The bugger went over the fence or under
> 
> Anyway too keep things legal rifle was left on my side of the fence while I looked for it as I have a knife.  I'm still pissed off but lost the trail of blood. Searched on the other side for an hour,now I'm a fukn poacherAttachment 23061Attachment 23062Attachment 23063


That's a bugger Dundee.

On a side note: All this poaching talk has sparked my interest. I might have to give it a go myself. Since it looks like I might be in the market I might have to poach a replacement vehicle from the north island as there isn't much around here.

----------


## EeeBees

Sidney wrote...
_It would seem to me, that the "increase in poaching"? coincides with increasing interest in hunting and reducing access to private property, because farmers now tend to view wild animals that they do not own, as a resource.

It would also seem to me that landowners are more indignant (because of their perception of ownership) about all this, and because they spend most of their time talking to themselves and not developing communication skills, they may not tend to engage particularly well with small bands of scruffy men carrying firearms. From a past life, a place of self righteousness and authority is no substitute for well developed communication skills, particularly when those you are dealing with may well lack in these areas as well._

I am very disappointed to read such a post on our forum...

----------


## Wirehunt

The irony Dundee, you could still get trespassed even though no rifle.   Did you have permission?

----------


## Sidney

> Sidney wrote...
> _It would seem to me, that the "increase in poaching"? coincides with increasing interest in hunting and reducing access to private property, because farmers now tend to view wild animals that they do not own, as a resource.
> 
> It would also seem to me that landowners are more indignant (because of their perception of ownership) about all this, and because they spend most of their time talking to themselves and not developing communication skills, they may not tend to engage particularly well with small bands of scruffy men carrying firearms. From a past life, a place of self righteousness and authority is no substitute for well developed communication skills, particularly when those you are dealing with may well lack in these areas as well._
> 
> I am very disappointed to read such a post on our forum...


And witness a lack of communication skills... perhaps you should try and read it again and this time try to understand it

I was a farmer... it was a tongue in cheek remark almost self mocking.. and only seeking to point out the need to manage those situations carefully..

The first statement is observational, and would be an accurate reflection of many landowners opinions...  Again having been a farmer I have seen and watched the access issues for years..

If you don't understand clarification is the first step......

----------


## Dundee

> The irony Dundee, you could still get trespassed even though no rifle.   Did you have permission?


I have had permission before from the land owner,but tonight I never rang before jumping the boundary :ORLY:

----------


## gadgetman

> If anything this thread has proven to me it's that a lot of you "jump the fence" and then wonder why you meet grumpy farmers at road ends
> The division between those of us that try and make a living from the land and the town people grows bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 @BRADS, it is not just a country/town thing. Town people put up big fences and gates and close themselves off from the rest of the world. They don't talk to their neighbours; one thing the quakes down here has changed to a degree. The problem is more that there is a certain element in our society that just don't care about anyone else and know that at worst it will be the wet bus ticket if caught. They ruin it for the good country folk and the good town folk. Over the years I've done a lot of work on farms and know the story well from both sides.

If these bad elements were properly dealt with then we would likely see the rural areas opened up more. At the moment a lot of the farmers that in the past would allow access across their property have been burnt and have stopped the access in order to curtail the problems. The flip side is that the unformed public roads need to be sorted too, no one else is allowed to block off a public access just because the bad element have been using it too. We have an alleyway next to us too, ripping off fence palings, stealing stuff, chucking rubbish, hiding behind the garage drinking beer, tagging,  ...

----------


## Wirehunt

> I have had permission before from the land owner,but tonight I never rang before jumping the boundary


This exact scenario caused us a LOT of grief on one place.  To the letter in fact.

----------


## Dundee

I must get some shut eye before @BRADS wakes up  :Thumbsup:

----------


## Nibblet

A lot of these issues seem like they could be solved with a box of beer?

----------


## gimp

yeah or just not poaching.

----------


## Pengy

> The irony Dundee, you could still get trespassed even though no rifle.   Did you have permission?


Is it just me that thinks maybe WH hasnt read what Dundee wrote properly  :Wink:

----------


## Pengy

Teenage deer killer is jailed for eight months - Fife / Local / News / The Courier

----------


## kiwigreen

> Whats so technical about it, if your knowingly on private property with a firearm an without permission, regardless of how close to doc land you are, your pushing the boundary of being "fit and proper".
> 
> The only excuse in my opinion would be pursuing a wounded animal.


A place I've been going into lately has areas where lots of people hunt but isn't technically legal in some places. The track goes in and out of doc and private but everyone still hunts the whole area because it's not exactly easy to tell where the boundaries are, way too much of a jungle in there to begin with.

----------


## The Rifleman

> And witness a lack of communication skills... perhaps you should try and read it again and this time try to understand it
> 
> I was a farmer... it was a tongue in cheek remark almost self mocking.. and only seeking to point out the need to manage those situations carefully..
> 
> The first statement is observational, and would be an accurate reflection of many landowners opinions...  Again having been a farmer I have seen and watched the access issues for years..
> 
> If you don't understand clarification is the first step......


Too true Sidney.
The whole "poaching" debate always turns into a debate from those of us who would generally deem scoring a wild venison without being caught on the wrong side of the fence as a little win for the hunter/gatherer vs the landowner mentality that views everything as theirs, including the public roads that run through their estates. I'm a "townie" to all you cockies out there. We work real hard for our kills. I know the odd farmer who's ok with a hunt on their place. The majority (family members included) will fob me and many hunters I know off. If you move in their circles and political sphere (National supporters) then that's a different story . . . .lol. It's not because we are untrustworthy etc that they fob us off, it's because they are greedy, red necks that want any resource they can possibly command to use to their advantage. Also, we're those working class boys from the town who need to be kept an eye on . . . .lest they forget who the master is . . .lol

Hahahaha . . . . I'm just kidding with ya . . . you know I love you rural types. . . . you're the backbone of the country!

Before you illiterate, myopic red necks get on my thoughts - I don't like dudes who disrespect other people livestock, equipment etc.

----------


## Yukon

And the bits that are not in private ownership are owned by HM QE2 and chums.

----------


## Pengy

That would be apart from the millions of acres of public land would it.

----------


## The Rifleman

> And the bits that are not in private ownership are owned by HM QE2 and chums.


 Dead right. In fact the  QE2 thing appears to be a nice little way for some farmers to get others paying for fences, poison etc on their property while still having free reign over the so-called protected area.

Hell, I know two farmers who use the QE2 blocks as their own little hunting reserves. One has a deer farm near by a lets his so-called escapees breed up there so his "boys" can get so easy hunting in. What a joke.

----------


## The Rifleman

> And the bits that are not in private ownership are owned by HM QE2 and chums.


 Dead right. In fact the  QE2 thing appears to be a nice little way for some farmers to get others paying for fences, poison etc on their property while still having free reign over the so-called protected area.

Hell, I know two farmers who use the QE2 blocks as their own little hunting reserves. One has a deer farm near by a lets his so-called escapees breed up there so his "boys" can get some easy hunting in. What a joke.

----------


## Pengy

The fact that they put a covenant on the land doesnt mean they no longer own it, so I guess they can do what they want within the terms of the covenant. Kind of tough if you dont like that

----------


## The Rifleman

> The fact that they put a covenant on the land doesn't mean they no longer own it, so I guess they can do what they want within the terms of the covenant. Kind of tough if you dont like that


My point, if you can't decipher it, is that they obviously still have authority over it whilst using other peoples money to look after it whilst using it as "they" see fit. Not all farmers will do this, "as they see fit" (read abuse). My point is about hypocrisy and double dipping. Their high moral ground is a farce at times. I was born in a poor man's bed and such is my lot. Many farmers are born in a bed that bestows heredity "rights". Or if you work real hard (no guarantee), kiss the right arse or marry the right person then you might get a piece of that action too.

----------


## Wirehunt

I did Pengy.  I don't think you did though.
He didn't have express permission _this time_....  Without that you can get nailed.

----------


## Pengy

> I did Pengy.  I don't think you did though.
> He didn't have express permission _this time_....  Without that you can get nailed.


Pretty sure he says he was on his own land

----------


## Pengy

> My point, if you can't decipher it, is that they obviously still have authority over it whilst using other peoples money to look after it whilst using it as "they" see fit. Not all farmers will do this, "as they see fit" (read abuse). My point is about hypocrisy and double dipping. Their high moral ground is a farce at times. I was born in a poor man's bed and such is my lot. Many farmers are born in a bed that bestows heredity "rights". Or if you work real hard (no guarantee), kiss the right arse or marry the right person then you might get a piece of that action too.


Do you want a big mac to go with that chip on your shoulder

----------


## The Rifleman

> Do you want a big mac to go with that chip on your shoulder


Pengy, settle down. If you've run out of things to say then stop talking. Don't resort trying to say I've got a chip when I have the balls to speak a few home truths. Pathetic. Put that spade down cause the hole you're in is just getting deeper . . . . . lol

----------


## jord

Flirting with forum and general moral ethics as usual. Poor drills there. Could really spare the personal comments IMHO. 
Shame about one that go away @Dundee !!

I get a bit tired of the country vs townie argument. I think it's irrelevant. As Gadgetman alluded to, it's about respect for your neighbour/landowner/fellow NZer and working in/communicating with them. Regardless of whether we think cockies are on their moral high horses or not - they pull rank on their land and that's absolutely black and white to me. . No point having a go at them - how about you make an effort, build a relationship and be a solution tot he problem which is, essentially, lack of communication and fostering a relationship? 
In regards to genuinely not knowing where DOC/Private boundaries are; and adding to the in depth comments already made, the courts will show some (minimal) discretion if you get sprung and there's no fence etc but that's purely legal and will be weighed and judged case by case. I think it comes down to ethics. If you're potentially going to be crossing, bordering or hunting in close proximity to a farm - go and see the bloody farmer and have a yarn. If you're not sure, don't shoot!? Easier said than done at times I know (first hand). Draw your line before you get in the heat of the moment. Or do what I do and hunt way the fckuck away from anyone's farm so as never to be tempted. 

But seriously, ethics and morals need to rule here as that is the real law out in gods own when we're away from suburbia. 

Shit I need a scotch now.

----------


## jord

One that got away* - edit post isn't working admins.

----------


## gadgetman

> Flirting with forum and general moral ethics as usual. Poor drills there. Could really spare the personal comments IMHO. 
> Shame about one that go away @Dundee !!
> 
> I get a bit tired of the country vs townie argument. I think it's irrelevant. As Gadgetman alluded to, it's about respect for your neighbour/landowner/fellow NZer and working in/communicating with them. Regardless of whether we think cockies are on their moral high horses or not - they pull rank on their land and that's absolutely black and white to me. . No point having a go at them - how about you make an effort, build a relationship and be a solution tot he problem which is, essentially, lack of communication and fostering a relationship? 
> In regards to genuinely not knowing where DOC/Private boundaries are; and adding to the in depth comments already made, the courts will show some (minimal) discretion if you get sprung and there's no fence etc but that's purely legal and will be weighed and judged case by case. I think it comes down to ethics. If you're potentially going to be crossing, bordering or hunting in close proximity to a farm - go and see the bloody farmer and have a yarn. If you're not sure, don't shoot!? Easier said than done at times I know (first hand). Draw your line before you get in the heat of the moment. Or do what I do and hunt way the fckuck away from anyone's farm so as never to be tempted. 
> 
> But seriously, ethics and morals need to rule here as that is the real law out in gods own when we're away from suburbia. 
> 
> Shit I need a scotch now.


Well put jord.

----------


## Savage1

> The flaw was the Agg Burglary... as was retracted... prior to you correcting me.  The rest no sorry... no flaws..
> 
> Case law has not extended to cover famers paddocks with regard to burglary... otherwise you would be charging people with burglary for stock theft... it doesn't have to be stated in case law that it doesn't apply for it not to apply...  existing case law in reference to buildings and structures would indicate that it would be unlikely to apply, so it hasn't been attempted to my knowledge...
> 
> A scenario... offender enters "secure" yard( Jumps fence, breaks into shed but takes items from yard) charged with burglary of shed, but theft from yard.  The theft from yard would indicate/confirm intention when he B&E the shed.
> 
> Other charges can be indicative of intent and are often used in that way...  I haven't suggested that a charge of burglary cannot be established without additional charges..
> 
> U/L On Property with a drunk... I did say possibly and yes he would have a defence if he could establish a lack of intent.. if he broke into a shed however for that purpose causing damage then ???
> ...


So there is no case law stating that a fenced paddock isn't an enclosed yard, so there is no case law that covers this so can be challenged in court, not sure why you keep bringing up case law.

A structure isn't needed to complete burglary, I know this as I've charge a person for Burglary when they never entered any structure. Have a look at section 232(2) CA 1961.

The scenario you gave would just have one information for Burglary laid.

You had flaws regarding not being able to commit Burglary without a building or structure, people normally being charged with two offences and not being able to commit burglary on land.

----------


## 308

Can someone poach this thread and put it out of its misery?

----------


## Sidney

> So there is no case law stating that a fenced paddock isn't an enclosed yard, so there is no case law that covers this so can be challenged in court, not sure why you keep bringing up case law.
> 
> A structure isn't needed to complete burglary, I know this as I've charge a person for Burglary when they never entered any structure. Have a look at section 232(2) CA 1961.
> 
> The scenario you gave would just have one information for Burglary laid.
> 
> You had flaws regarding not being able to commit Burglary without a building or structure, people normally being charged with two offences and not being able to commit burglary on land.


So you are having difficulty with how case law interprets and applies binding decisions..

An enclosed yard is a structure yes...  ?  If you follow through the statue you will find a theme...  to suggest that a farmer's paddock would fall within the confines of an enclosed yard for the purposes of this statute would be laughable... go for your life... grist for the legal profession

If the offence of burglary is not complete on entering the yard, but is for the shed and the theft is not from the shed you are seriously suggesting a separate charge wouldn't be laid...?  Not the case in my experience... I take the unstated point that the serious penalty charge effectively minimises the value and the effect of the lesser charge, but again the theft is a separate offence.  And it clearly indicates intent for the purpose of the burglary charge where intent is required to be established.

A yard is not land...  it is a confined space, limited in area surrounded by a secure structure, requiring some physical breach to enter... 

You can continue this but the word obtuse comes to mind, and while I could be more so, for the sake of the onlookers I won't start being really pedantic.  They would get very bored if I started talking about parliamentary intention and pulling dicta from case law...

Signing off.....

----------


## big_foot

> So you are having difficulty with how case law interprets and applies binding decisions..
> 
> An enclosed yard is a structure yes...  ?  If you follow through the statue you will find a theme...  to suggest that a farmer's paddock would fall within the confines of an enclosed yard for the purposes of this statute would be laughable... go for your life... grist for the legal profession
> 
> If the offence of burglary is not complete on entering the yard, but is for the shed and the theft is not from the shed you are seriously suggesting a separate charge wouldn't be laid...?  Not the case in my experience... I take the unstated point that the serious penalty charge effectively minimises the value and the effect of the lesser charge, but again the theft is a separate offence.  And it clearly indicates intent for the purpose of the burglary charge where intent is required to be established.
> 
> A yard is not land...  it is a confined space, limited in area surrounded by a secure structure, requiring some physical breach to enter... 
> 
> You can continue this but the word obtuse comes to mind, and while I could be more so, for the sake of the onlookers I won't start being really pedantic.  They would get very bored if I started talking about parliamentary intention and pulling dicta from case law...
> ...


That happened a few pages back, but I just keep coming back :Sad:

----------


## Rushy

> That happened a few pages back, but I just keep coming back


Ha ha ha ha, yup.  Sort of became a sand pit at a kindergarten a few pages back.

----------


## 7mmwsm

> Dead right. In fact the  QE2 thing appears to be a nice little way for some farmers to get others paying for fences, poison etc on their property while still having free reign over the so-called protected area.
> 
> Hell, I know two farmers who use the QE2 blocks as their own little hunting reserves. One has a deer farm near by a lets his so-called escapees breed up there so his "boys" can get some easy hunting in. What a joke.


You are not entirely right.
There are various schemes such as QE2 and Clean Streams. They pay a percentage of the fencing costs. Not sure what percent QE2 pays but Environment Waikato pays 30% in my area. I think areas under QE2 are exempt from rates. Don't go thinking that you get your fencing paid for and then you can use the area as another paddock because you can't. These areas are usually monitored. There are plenty of QE2 blocks with deer and pigs in them. Everyone will probably be able to tell a story about someone who isn't playing by the rules. But that happens in every walk of life. If you are not happy about it, don't wine to us about it, wine to someone who will make a difference.
I resent the comments about farmers standing on moral high ground and treating everything as theirs etc. 
Well it might just be that everything they have is theirs.
I went through a stage in life where I didn't have a life. I had work and a huge debt. Shearing on the fine days. Traveling away, sometimes an hour or more, shearing all day, returning home to run my farm after work. Wet days were spent fencing for other farmers in the area. Days off were quite rare. Hunting took a distant back seat. Pig dogs got given away. Kids had to be content with mum being the only one at school events, weekend sports etc.
Our "townie" (not intended to be an offensive title") friends with their 9 to 5 jobs thought I was a sour prick because I wouldn't go out partying with them, or when I did I would go home by 9 oclock because I was falling asleep.
I have game on my farm which has arrived there by its own accord. And I feel that while they are on my property I have more right to to them than anyone else.
Can you imagine what it would be like to arrive home from a day busting your arse shearing, to find some bludger (often on the dole, or to sick to work so is on ACC) has been in and whipped a deer out while you were away? 
A lot of hunters are very short sighted. They don't see that deer on a private block keep deer in the area. (A bit like marine reserves. A lot of fishermen don't like reserves set up in their area, but they like catching the fish that spill out of them). They only think about them getting a deer today. I was exactly the same once.
I don't generally allow others to hunt here simply because we hunt ourselves. My kids are old enough to hunt now so why give away their hunting. If people don't like hearing no for an answer then to bad.
A bit of advice if you are going door knocking. Present yourself well. Tidy hair, decent clothes, clean speech dont drop F's and C's. Don't woffle on about how shit hot you are at hunting. And if you have bloodshot eyes and stink of dope, don't even bother.
And taking a really hot mrs with you might help.

----------


## username

> You are not entirely right.
> There are various schemes such as QE2 and Clean Streams. They pay a percentage of the fencing costs. Not sure what percent QE2 pays but Environment Waikato pays 30% in my area. I think areas under QE2 are exempt from rates. Don't go thinking that you get your fencing paid for and then you can use the area as another paddock because you can't. These areas are usually monitored. There are plenty of QE2 blocks with deer and pigs in them. Everyone will probably be able to tell a story about someone who isn't playing by the rules. But that happens in every walk of life. If you are not happy about it, don't wine to us about it, wine to someone who will make a difference.
> I resent the comments about farmers standing on moral high ground and treating everything as theirs etc. 
> Well it might just be that everything they have is theirs.
> I went through a stage in life where I didn't have a life. I had work and a huge debt. Shearing on the fine days. Traveling away, sometimes an hour or more, shearing all day, returning home to run my farm after work. Wet days were spent fencing for other farmers in the area. Days off were quite rare. Hunting took a distant back seat. Pig dogs got given away. Kids had to be content with mum being the only one at school events, weekend sports etc.
> Our "townie" (not intended to be an offensive title") friends with their 9 to 5 jobs thought I was a sour prick because I wouldn't go out partying with them, or when I did I would go home by 9 oclock because I was falling asleep.
> I have game on my farm which has arrived there by its own accord. And I feel that while they are on my property I have more right to to them than anyone else.
> Can you imagine what it would be like to arrive home from a day busting your arse shearing, to find some bludger (often on the dole, or to sick to work so is on ACC) has been in and whipped a deer out while you were away? 
> A lot of hunters are very short sighted. They don't see that deer on a private block keep deer in the area. (A bit like marine reserves. A lot of fishermen don't like reserves set up in their area, but they like catching the fish that spill out of them). They only think about them getting a deer today. I was exactly the same once.
> ...


Mate don't bother there are heaps of forum members that resent this entire thread but we are choosing not to contribute. You can't argue with  people who have such huge  delusions of self entitlement!

----------


## Brian

Across the road from us is a gully that everyone in Upper Hutt hunted over the last 50 years.When the owner died the new owner told everyone he would give the first poacher he caught a hiding.When he caught one he did that Everyone heard about it and he has had no trouble since.

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

> Across the road from us is a gully that everyone in Upper Hutt hunted over the last 50 years.When the owner died the new owner told everyone he would give the first poacher he caught a hiding.When he caught one he did that Everyone heard about it and he has had no trouble since.



AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaahhh..........Happy days, sadly long gone in he face of "an individual's rights"..............(To poach)

----------


## Kiwi Sapper

PING..........Moderator. Edit facility still NBG Last night would only return a blank screen for editing, today telling me I am forbidden to post a and or edit........(Might be right perhaps?)

----------


## Rushy

> Mate don't bother there are heaps of forum members that resent this entire thread but we are choosing not to contribute. You can't argue with  people who have such huge  delusions of self entitlement!


Good on ya mate.

----------


## Pengy

> Mate don't bother there are heaps of forum members that resent this entire thread but we are choosing not to contribute. You can't argue with  people who have such huge  delusions of self entitlement!


Yep. I backed off as soon as it looked like a kids sandpit fight. Some people just seem to gop through life with blinkers on, and will never be swayed to think outside their own little box unfortunately.
 @7mmwsm. Thanks for the insight.

----------


## gadgetman

> You are not entirely right.
> There are various schemes such as QE2 and Clean Streams. They pay a percentage of the fencing costs. Not sure what percent QE2 pays but Environment Waikato pays 30% in my area. I think areas under QE2 are exempt from rates. Don't go thinking that you get your fencing paid for and then you can use the area as another paddock because you can't. These areas are usually monitored. There are plenty of QE2 blocks with deer and pigs in them. Everyone will probably be able to tell a story about someone who isn't playing by the rules. But that happens in every walk of life. If you are not happy about it, don't wine to us about it, wine to someone who will make a difference.
> I resent the comments about farmers standing on moral high ground and treating everything as theirs etc. 
> Well it might just be that everything they have is theirs.
> I went through a stage in life where I didn't have a life. I had work and a huge debt. Shearing on the fine days. Traveling away, sometimes an hour or more, shearing all day, returning home to run my farm after work. Wet days were spent fencing for other farmers in the area. Days off were quite rare. Hunting took a distant back seat. Pig dogs got given away. Kids had to be content with mum being the only one at school events, weekend sports etc.
> Our "townie" (not intended to be an offensive title") friends with their 9 to 5 jobs thought I was a sour prick because I wouldn't go out partying with them, or when I did I would go home by 9 oclock because I was falling asleep.
> I have game on my farm which has arrived there by its own accord. And I feel that while they are on my property I have more right to to them than anyone else.
> Can you imagine what it would be like to arrive home from a day busting your arse shearing, to find some bludger (often on the dole, or to sick to work so is on ACC) has been in and whipped a deer out while you were away? 
> A lot of hunters are very short sighted. They don't see that deer on a private block keep deer in the area. (A bit like marine reserves. A lot of fishermen don't like reserves set up in their area, but they like catching the fish that spill out of them). They only think about them getting a deer today. I was exactly the same once.
> ...


Yup, it is not the country folk at fault, it is not the townies at fault. It is about the few from both that to not follow the rules; legal or social. 

Excellent write up 7mmwsm. The guy responsible for keeping things running works like crazy to keep it all together. I've seen a lot of business owners doing the same, start around 6am knock off usually about 10pm on a good day.

----------


## Pengy

I would imagine it would be very tempting for landowners, possibly struggling to pay rates on unproductive blocks, to simply sell the land off to the highest bidder for developement etc.
Fortunately, owner of the 2 QE11 blocks that I have a little knowledge of have been more forward thinking at not "self serving/double dipping " etc.
One block I know of could have fetched millions. The owner instead set it up as a dedicated Kiwi sanctuary, and fund raises in earnest to keep it as such. He does allow pig hunters in, so long as all dogs are Kiwi averted.
The other block belongs or did belong to one of the first families that settled and farmed up this way. They spent generations clearing the land through bloody hard work. 
Some of this land proved un-productive but they obviously still had to pay rates on it. This family used a QE11 covenant to protect the land in perpetuity and in effect gave it to the people of NZ. Again, they could have sold up and made a fortune.
Instead, this particular block now provides acces to a rather nice beach which is probably one of the most visited spots on the NI and draws visitors from around the globe, who otherwise would only be able to see it from a boat. Cathedral Cove is its name.

----------


## EeeBees

We all too often forget that much of the marginal land (high country) was balloted out to returned service men who would otherwise have never had the opportunity of buying land and for making not only personal sacrifices in the cause of freedom and peace but for coming home and mucking in to make sure that the depravity and devastation which they had witnessed elsewhere would never happen in our beautiful little country.

----------


## Pengy

I am pretty sure that scenario applies to the second case that i quoted EB.
As I am currently working for a member of the family in question, I shall try to find out

----------


## scottrods

> It's only trespassing when you've had notice served. And that can't be done the first time you are caught.


Nope. Trespass notification only works if no firearm carried e.g an angler or tramper. If you're carrying a firearm on private land without permission its immediate trespass.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

----------


## The Rifleman

> You are not entirely right.
> There are various schemes such as QE2 and Clean Streams. They pay a percentage of the fencing costs. Not sure what percent QE2 pays but Environment Waikato pays 30% in my area. I think areas under QE2 are exempt from rates. Don't go thinking that you get your fencing paid for and then you can use the area as another paddock because you can't. These areas are usually monitored. There are plenty of QE2 blocks with deer and pigs in them. Everyone will probably be able to tell a story about someone who isn't playing by the rules. But that happens in every walk of life. If you are not happy about it, don't wine to us about it, wine to someone who will make a difference.
> I resent the comments about farmers standing on moral high ground and treating everything as theirs etc. 
> Well it might just be that everything they have is theirs.
> I went through a stage in life where I didn't have a life. I had work and a huge debt. Shearing on the fine days. Traveling away, sometimes an hour or more, shearing all day, returning home to run my farm after work. Wet days were spent fencing for other farmers in the area. Days off were quite rare. Hunting took a distant back seat. Pig dogs got given away. Kids had to be content with mum being the only one at school events, weekend sports etc.
> Our "townie" (not intended to be an offensive title") friends with their 9 to 5 jobs thought I was a sour prick because I wouldn't go out partying with them, or when I did I would go home by 9 oclock because I was falling asleep.
> I have game on my farm which has arrived there by its own accord. And I feel that while they are on my property I have more right to to them than anyone else.
> Can you imagine what it would be like to arrive home from a day busting your arse shearing, to find some bludger (often on the dole, or to sick to work so is on ACC) has been in and whipped a deer out while you were away? 
> A lot of hunters are very short sighted. They don't see that deer on a private block keep deer in the area. (A bit like marine reserves. A lot of fishermen don't like reserves set up in their area, but they like catching the fish that spill out of them). They only think about them getting a deer today. I was exactly the same once.
> ...


You make some good points there 7mmwsm. I can totally appreciate your views and experience. And I know too well from friends who farm that in many instances the amount of feral deer on their property would not sustain regular hunting (notwithstanding their right to harvest that venison themselves). I also appreciate your point about the flow on affect of looking after the feral numbers in the sense that this may contribute to deer numbers permeating public land.

But in my experience (and I'm a hard-working carpenter, that doesn't do dope or is some kind of waster, and has a pretty tidy Mrs . . . .lol) a man can only take so many fob offs and rejections before he says "fuck it". I also sucks when you know some of those you have approached in a very respectful manner have mobs and mobs of deer out the back.

----------


## jord

> Nope. Trespass notification only works if no firearm carried e.g an angler or tramper. If you're carrying a firearm on private land without permission its immediate trespass.
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk


A trespass order/notice can be issued at the landowner/managers discretion if someone has trespassed. A "breach of trespass" is the where the bite comes in, and that can obviously only occur the second time but carries a much heavier penalty. 


Sent from my Browning

----------


## 7mmwsm

> You make some good points there 7mmwsm. I can totally appreciate your views and experience. And I know too well from friends who farm that in many instances the amount of feral deer on their property would not sustain regular hunting (notwithstanding their right to harvest that venison themselves). I also appreciate your point about the flow on affect of looking after the feral numbers in the sense that this may contribute to deer numbers permeating public land.
> 
> But in my experience (and I'm a hard-working carpenter, that doesn't do dope or is some kind of waster, and has a pretty tidy Mrs . . . .lol) a man can only take so many fob offs and rejections before he says "fuck it". I also sucks when you know some of those you have approached in a very respectful manner have mobs and mobs of deer out the back.


I can also appreciate what you are saying about the fob offs and rejections. But some people don't like others on their property, for what ever reason.
I should also point out that although I make out that life has been hard, there have been hard patches. If I had my time over again I probably wouldn't change much. Perhaps the odd drunken rampage where Ive woken up the next day and thought "shit I shouldn't have done that". 
I love hard work and getting a sweat up. And life is quite cruisy now.
Wirehunt also made a statement earlier in this thread about tresspassing/poaching in areas of multiple ownership where obtaining permission from the owners is a huge task (often for a short term permit I presume). I am almost simpathetic to guys like him. 
I don't like the types who poach for the thrill of poaching. Leaving heads on fences and sign posts etc, and leaving messages for the owners to find. I believe in "what goes around, comes around". And one day....

----------


## headcase

Cant be the same Wirehunt I know, chasing poachers off the property we were working.. at every opportunity.. Must have been protecting his patch or maybe he has multiple personalities.  :Thumbsup:

----------


## TeRei

Maybe another HB case of poaching by hunting guides employee with client but despite camo gear the hunter had a vid with him. Smile for the birdie. Pete Gimblett may have another easy case this time.LOL.

----------


## Yukon

> Cant be the same Wirehunt I know, chasing poachers off the property we were working.. at every opportunity.. Must have been protecting his patch or maybe he has multiple personalities.


Can't be the same Wirehunt that I know because there isn't enough alcohol to support two of them  :Yaeh Am Not Durnk:

----------


## The Jackel

At the end of the day, if its not your land and you don't have permission, then it is poaching.

It doesn't matter who owns that land, I'm sure you wouldn't like someone in your yard with a firearm without permission.

It is frustrating that there is limited land to hunt on. but it is, what it is.

The owners of large lots of land pay rates and most of the time have a big mortgage to pay.

Poachers that take more fish than they are allowed or trespass on others property are just a waste of time.

Proven poachers, should have there firearms licence taken away and guns confiscated.

Or ideally, their nuts removed so they don't breed….

----------


## warhorse

1.i think the technical term is "enclosure". on private property-
2. not every "high fence" is deemed domestic area. a deer behind any fence that does not have a completed enclosure is not guaranteed to belong to anyone unless its tagged and i.d. if not tagged and outside of an "enclosed area" its fair game within the safety parameters of shooting.
3.just becos sheep or cattle stray along the road, doesn't mean they become fair game. they still belong to someone where they have a id tag. 
4 Thats a moot point anyway. Shooting is not permitted along any roadway. or within certain distance of roadways.
5. So WH is essentially right.

----------


## oneshot

A lot of sensitive people on here  :Wtfsmilie:

----------


## Willie

> Lost an animal tonight  Was hunting on my land.  The bugger went over the fence or under
> 
> Anyway too keep things legal rifle was left on my side of the fence while I looked for it as I have a knife.  I'm still pissed off but lost the trail of blood. Searched on the other side for an hour,now I'm a fukn poacherAttachment 23061Attachment 23062Attachment 23063


You mean the poacher got away :Thumbsup:

----------


## Willie

I like poaching!
Much prefer it to frying my eggs or hard boiling them, just that little bit more classy.

Cheers everyone and what a veritable bundle of laughter times.

----------


## screamO

I just spent 1/2 hr reading back through all this :Wtfsmilie:  I still can't work out if I'm aloud to poach or not (just kidding)!!!
I had read a article awhile back in the farming mag from someone at WAMS saying "lets get it straight its not poaching it's trespassing" (I've been trying to find the article I think I've posted it before). 
While I would / will not tolerate people on my property there are a few property owners around this area who think they own everything and are making a song and dance about it all with no right! and to the stage where they are becoming the criminal. I hate to say it but I feel like just going there to antagonise them. Before all the ante comes out this is a area open to the public! 
Is there a difference between poaching and illegal hunting? yea, to me poaching is stealing other peoples stock! to me there is a big difference.
While there are websites out like WAMS I think the average hunter is now more informed and can back up there reason's for being in the area regardless of what the farmer thinks!
Not sure what I'm trying to say but I'm sure people know when they are breaking the law and I'm sure there are the others that are just pushing it to the limits, mean while I think there are some landowners out there on marginal ground that just whish no body was there.

----------


## BRADS

> I just spent 1/2 hr reading back through all this I still can't work out if I'm aloud to poach or not (just kidding)!!!
> I had read a article awhile back in the farming mag from someone at WAMS saying "lets get it straight its not poaching it's trespassing" (I've been trying to find the article I think I've posted it before). 
> While I would / will not tolerate people on my property there are a few property owners around this area who think they own everything and are making a song and dance about it all with no right! and to the stage where they are becoming the criminal. I hate to say it but I feel like just going there to antagonise them. Before all the ante comes out this is a area open to the public! 
> Is there a difference between poaching and illegal hunting? yea, to me poaching is stealing other peoples stock! to me there is a big difference.
> While there are websites out like WAMS I think the average hunter is now more informed and can back up there reason's for being in the area regardless of what the farmer thinks!
> Not sure what I'm trying to say but I'm sure people know when they are breaking the law and I'm sure there are the others that are just pushing it to the limits, mean while I think there are some landowners out there on marginal ground that just whish no body was there.


+1 there's also some dumb fuck hunters out there......
Mrs is on Facebook I'm not about to months ago she's like hey come look at this, low and behold some champ had shot a stag on the farm, and posted the pic up with a a very clear shot of the surrounding area

----------


## R93

Seen similar just recently. Some champ shot a promising fallow buck where I got mine and posted photos.
We have photos of the deer when it was alive and it was left alone because it had a year to go and had certain tines broken off the palms.
He is or already has gotten a visit from an angry land owner. 😆

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

----------


## GravelBen

> Is there a difference between poaching and illegal hunting? yea, to me poaching is stealing other peoples stock! to me there is a big difference.


Sorry but you're wrong. Illegally taking stock animals = rustling (or just theft), illegally hunting game animals = poaching. Read a dictionary if you don't believe me.

----------


## Wirehunt

> Sorry but you're wrong. Illegally taking stock animals = rustling (or just theft), illegally hunting game animals = poaching. Read a dictionary if you don't believe me.


This is why so many are confused. ..

----------


## 7mmwsm

The rules should be like they were in the old days.
Poaching or rustling, same result. Rope around your neck.
No problem with re offending.

----------


## Wirehunt

So bring back shooting anyone that slides into bed with the cook?  Shoot any neighbour that nips over the fence?  Could have done that yesterday. ....

----------


## Friwi

And let's burn the witches on public place! We will end up not much better than the fuckers from ISIS

----------


## P38

I know a a couple of brothers found guilty of poaching.

One was called Thomas the other was John.

Their sentence ..... Ship them to a penal coloney on the otherside of the planet and give them seven years hard labour to boot.  :Oh Noes: 

The sentence seemed a bit harsh at the time but it all worked out Ok for them in the end.  :Have A Nice Day: 

17th century Brittish Justice at its best.

Guess we've gone a bit soft since then aye!

Cheers
Pete

----------


## Dundee

Busted :Thumbsup: 

Seven caught in poaching sting | Stuff.co.nz

----------


## kiwijames

I hate it when you're poaching and get distracted. 

What should have been the perfect 5 minute egg can become a tasteless lump on your morning Vogels no matter how much salt or Worchestershire sauce you use.

----------


## Munsey

> Busted
> 
> Seven caught in poaching sting | Stuff.co.nz


 @Pengy Hope they the arsholes lighting the pui pui when you where camping there !

----------


## Dundee

He will be in bed Munsey :Grin:

----------


## Pengy

> He will be in bed Munsey


Just got home DD

----------


## Dundee

Night night to you too mr penguin,great to see you again. Did Brads give your chilly bag back?

----------


## keneff

Looks like that deer has been wearing a collar

----------


## Chris

> The rules should be like they were in the old days.
> Poaching or rustling, same result. Rope around your neck.
> No problem with re offending.


Friends of mine keeping a few pigs on their farm but the numbers where going down.They got onto who was doing it & apparently was a butchers shop in Morrinsville  tied up in the mix. Was a lot of animals being taken .So a group of guys got together to catch the bastards & they got the main offender 1 night.By the time the Komatua & reinforcements turned up they had the hope round the cunts neck & over a suitable branch . Was game over for those ass wholes & a bloody good job they got caught. They eventually let him go with a couple of rope burns & he got the color back into his face . 
That's what happens here so & after all its just stock thieving don't think you can call it poaching. Domestic stock on a farm (private property) if you think its fair game I'd be very afraid or have a good lawyer. Wouldn't even think about Mr D's cows unless your suicidal or just sick of living .

----------


## top gun

> The problem is theft and poaching are two different thing's, but a lot get it muddled up in NZ.
> 
> I've seen it a few times on here when this type of thing happens. Just look at the title of the other thread.
> People need to realize they are two very different things.
> If I went and whipped half of Dundee's cows what would that be called?


    It's all called " border patrolling" until you get caught!!!!   & then the law can decide which version you get charged with.

Remember though: that anyone caught where they're not supposed to be with a firearm can almost guarantee that their firearms licence will be revoked by our friendly fuzz force!!!!   Worth remembering,eh???

----------


## Pengy

I went for a nosey along part of the Wairau near Spring creek (?) today. There, laying neatly folded, were the skins and heads of two nice sized hinds, sitting out in the open on the river flats....complete with ear tags  :Sad:

----------


## top gun

> Not getting caught?!?! 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


   Yup that's right.  Until you get caught it is either " border patrolling"   or  " fringing"
When you're silly enough to get to the stage where you stupidly supply your real name or they ID your vehicle; you can rest assured that your firearms licence will go Ta Ta's too along with a healthy fine.   DON'T GET CAUGHT!!!!!

----------


## top gun

> And let's burn the witches on public place! We will end up not much better than the fuckers from ISIS


Nah, nah I wouldn't stoop to using petrol!!!! even if the price of it is as low as it currently is. Ya gotta have some principles in life,eh???

----------


## deer243

> Yup that's right.  Until you get caught it is either " border patrolling"   or  " fringing"
> When you're silly enough to get to the stage where you stupidly supply your real name or they ID your vehicle; you can rest assured that your firearms licence will go Ta Ta's too along with a healthy fine.   DON'T GET CAUGHT!!!!!


Hope you mean rather than not get caught don't do it at all...

----------


## Pengy

> Yup that's right.  Until you get caught it is either " border patrolling"   or  " fringing"
> When you're silly enough to get to the stage where you stupidly supply your real name or they ID your vehicle; you can rest assured that your firearms licence will go Ta Ta's too along with a healthy fine.   DON'T GET CAUGHT!!!!!


I hope I am wrong, but that post sounds to me like you are condoning it, and willing to try and cover your sorry arse if confronted

----------


## BRADS

> I hope I am wrong, but that post sounds to me like you are condoning it, and willing to try and cover your sorry arse if confronted


Lately Pengy I've taken the approach if I dig the hole deep enough they'll never find the body. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## Pengy

The Edge doesn't leave much to bury does it ?

Head shot from a km away....

----------


## BRADS

> The Edge doesn't leave much to bury does it ?
> 
> Head shot from a km away....


It's time consuming picking up all the little bits


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

----------


## StrikerNZ

> It's time consuming picking up all the little bits


Is that what the pups are for?

----------


## 7mmwsm

> Lately Pengy I've taken the approach if I dig the hole deep enough they'll never find the body. 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Sea

----------


## Nathan F

> Yup that's right.  Until you get caught it is either " border patrolling"   or  " fringing"
> When you're silly enough to get to the stage where you stupidly supply your real name or they ID your vehicle; you can rest assured that your firearms licence will go Ta Ta's too along with a healthy fine.   DON'T GET CAUGHT!!!!!


Really sharp ........ ( shaking head )

----------


## Munsey

Undercover robot animals in demand | Stuff.co.nz

----------


## gimp

I feel like this thread never remotely managed to get anything straight

----------


## Kiwi Greg

> Undercover robot animals in demand | Stuff.co.nz


Though apparently if you get caught shooting at a robot, you aren't actually shooting at a "deer"......

----------


## gimp

Shooting at _anything_ at a time or place you haven't got permission to do so is going to be a significant legal problem here, if the right people happen to observe it

----------


## keneff

> Do you understand the word proximately?
> 
> Statistically you would be in more danger crossing the street in Christchurch...
> 
> By the way, you don't have higher ground in this discussion, I have been a farmer and landowner as well as a few other things whilst currently a townie...
> 
> There is no justification for shooting stock, damaging property or assaulting people - but we aren't talking about poachers now are we now... we are talking about criminals...
> 
> It may be convenient for you to lump all together, but I would wager you never see most poachers, cause they don't wannabe seen... they don't damage your property, kill your stock or assault you...
> ...


Seems simple to me - stay off private property - don't shoot anywhere that isn't on your fukn open area Permit, end of saga. anyone arguing against that is a dreamy wanker. why try to rationalise all the bullshit?

----------

