Thread: Poaching, let's get this straight

Originally Posted by 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.

Well put jord.

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 as was retracted...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?

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.

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

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.....

Originally Posted by Sidney

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.....

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

Originally Posted by big_foot

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.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

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.

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!

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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?)

Originally Posted by username

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.

Originally Posted by username

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.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

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.

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.

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.

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.