I was raised under the philosophy that you need permission to hunt someone else's land, and that you should get that permission before you do so. I was also raised in an area where public and private lands were fairly checker boarded together, so it wasn't uncommon to accidentally end up on someone else's property without realizing it (if they had a problem with it they'd usually let you know, and we'd politely apologize and leave). Similarly, when my hunting friend acquired some land years later, we ran into the same issues where some folks would accidentally wander on to his property with no malicious intent.
Why not just change the poll to ask a single question: Is it ever morally permissable to poach?
My answer is no.
The issue of poaching is an interesting one. Poaching is typically defined as illegally taking game. I don't agree with sport poaching, or trophy poaching, or poaching just because you feel like hunting out of season. However, I've spent a good portion of my life hiking through the woods in some very depressed areas of Appalachia, where a lot of folks were truly dirt-floor poor. Over the course of my travels, I've occasionally ran across a meat-poacher or two.
One of these guys explained to me that he knew he was hunting illegally, but was more concerned with feeding his family, ever since losing his factory job. He told me that he only hunts for the purpose of getting meat on the table, and was interested in harvesting whatever he could find (squirrel, rabbit, deer, etc). I didn't get the impression that he was too interested in listening to the cries from sport hunters saying: "you are stealing my game!". Honestly, despite my law-abiding (and law enforcing) nature, I can't say that I blamed this guy.
In fact, if subsistence hunters were the only type of poachers out there, I doubt we'd even see any emphasis on poaching regulations! The fact remains that most poachers are doing so for sport, and are doing so for reasons that are far detached from necessity. By way of example, I had heard of the poaching incident involving Samson (a large bull elk near Estes Park, CO) long before I moved to this state... That was a very significant example of a problem poacher, and is probably more likely to represent the behavior of most poachers.
To each their own I suppose, but I'm not going to morally criminalize a guy with limited resources for trying to feed his family. I can feed my family without hunting, and certainly without poaching. But, if I ever saw my life descend into a level of poverty where I had to choose between shooting Bambi out of season, or letting my family go hungry, then I suppose I'd be putting venison on the table.
Again, just my $0.02
federalfarmer said:
I have owned rural land and would absolutely shoot you if you were on my property with a gun.
Absolutely, eh? Seriously, I hate seeing posturing like this on these forums! Maybe I'm just in a cranky mood tonight, but I get so tired of the chest-thumping that often shows up on gun forums. The reason this statement particularly bothers me is because we are talking about a scenario where the person on your land would be a hunter (legally or illegally), not a gang of terrorist zombies!
Are you honestly telling me that you'd simply shoot a hunter who accidentally ended up on your land? Even if the hunter was there without permission, and had disregarded a no hunting sign, are you going to shoot him/her for simply being there? Why not just call the Sheriff/Police, and/or tell the party to leave?
What if the guy/gal was on your land because he/she was trying to find a game animal that they had wounded? What if he was actually trying to contact you (the landowner) due to a nearby emergency?
Heck, I could go on for hours with the "what-if" scenarios... My only point here is that you will probably be heading to prison in short order if you approach someone with a "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy just because they ended up on your piece of dirt (even if they were hunting on private land without permission -- which is a midemeanor at best in every area that I know of). If the person unlawfully entered your house we'd be looking at a completely different issue, and the same would be true if you were defending yourself from an imminent attack.
But, please show me the law that allows you to "absolutely" shoot someone simply for 'being on [your] property with a gun'? And, if I misunderstood your meaning, I apologize... But, that seems like a rather bold assertion from where I'm sitting!