Thread: Poaching, let's get this straight

Originally Posted by BRADS

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...

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

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

@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.

Originally Posted by Sidney

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...

Let's just agree two to disagree
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
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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Sidney

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..

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.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Sapper

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...

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

Originally Posted by BRADS

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

Go the 'Blues'

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

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....

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Sidney

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.

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Sidney

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?

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

too pisst tu read l[owook out tomorrow w