to be fair, i have hunted texas public land and colorado. public hunting in texas SUCKS! unless its duck/dove. if it was like colorado i would agree. but here in texas the chance of taking a deer is about as good of a chance at winning the lotto.

[/quote]but these others who say kill a man just because he is killing a animal that will be feeding his family, you are no better than the (putting it politely) 'gang bangers' who kill a person just because. [/quote]

So if it's for meat it's ok to poach? How would you like it if someone came on your place and shot the trophy you've worked your azz off for? But it wasn't for meat? Does that change things any?

Do you mean that's what poacher's and trespassers think or is that your mind set?!

So if its dark, someone has a loaded weapon and is on your property, how is that any different than someone being in your driveway stealing your vehicle at night with a loaded handgun in their back pocket? I know the animals are the state's property and the vehicle is your property(unless you have a lien holder, then its not totally yours). Just because you assume they are only after God's animals and they are equally entitled to them doesn't mean it won't potentially turn fatal for you. You don't know what their state of mind is or how they will react to being confronted or simply discovered. Some people REALLY don't want to go to jail or face prosecution and will do what's necessary to avoid that. Either one of those situations has the same elements and potential for danger for you. The OP is lucky the poacher just simply ran off. Its not totally irrational to think so. A person shouldn't be so surprised at some of these posts.

Lots of excuses but there is no good reason without permission plain and simple. Not to mention how dangerous to go in with a weapon and not know if anyone could be in harms way of a shot. Make the penalty severe it is against the law after all.I applaud the GWs but they nail them and see them again in a few weeks if not days. Something has to be done.

Read Game Warden field notes on TPWD website.Most of these criminals are into a lot of different endeavours,theft,drugs,you name it .They're not some poor starving guy trying to feed his family.They're in it for money,adrenaline rush,thievery.They need to be hit hard in the wallet and jail time.

This is kinda what I was thinking. You don't know he is there, he don't know you are there. If a poacher shoots and kills an innocent person on their own place, do you think he will report it, if he even knows what has happened, or just let him lay there and die? Poaching can be a deadly activity to partake in. Would you go hunting with a bunch of guys and not know exactly where everyone was? I believe a poacher is a threat to a persons life, whether intentionally pointing a weapon at you or not. Would I personally shoot a man running off? NO! but I would put the fear of God in him.

Sounds like you've had a bad experience. I can't afford my own lease so unless I'm invited to a friend's lease, I have to make due with public lands or the TPWD drwaings. Public hunting in Texas doesn't SUCK, it's just difficult. I've never been skunked during the season while hunting public, but I put alot of time into it. Because it's tough I am that much more grateful for the deer I take. As for the original post, there is no excuse for poaching. Like I said earlier, there are options for someone needing to put food on the table without having the financial means to get on a lease.

Y'all have missed the fact that I am paraphrasing arguments made by others on the forum.

"Tresspassing can be justified, if there is personal gain to be had. People are entitled to all lands, if they've been there before and claim it as "their spot." Someone asks for advise on how to improve his current practices...insult him."

My last phrase was that we could continue this trend of entitlement and disrespect by attacking each other and tresspassing or we could remember that our sport was once based in respect and honor. It's our choice. By the direction this thread has taken, I'm concerned.

I should have indicated that I was quoting others in paragraph 2.

Just an interesting excerpt to read from an old poacher case.

Glover vs. State
69 S.W.2d 136 (1934 Tex. Crim. App.)

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for 25 years.

It was charged in the indictment, in substance, that appellant, with malice aforethought killed Walter Luedecke by shooting him with a gun.

Appellant lived on the McWilliams place near the town of Elgin. Mrs. Janie Westbrook had charge of the place, as executrix. Appellant rented from her and took care of the cattle belonging to the estate. Under his contract, he retained half of the crops he raised. He had posted the premises and would permit no hunting thereon.

On the afternoon of October 11, [***2] 1932, Bill McWilliams, who had an interest in the McWilliams estate, and Walter Luedecke were crossing a pasture near appellant's home. They had with them a bird dog and some guns, their purpose being to do some hunting and train the dog. According to the testimony of McWilliams, Esteen Glover, a son of appellant, commanded them to leave the pasture, saying that no hunting was allowed. McWilliams called his attention to the fact that he was a part owner of the premises and had some cattle in the pasture. This apparently satisfied Esteen as to the right of McWilliams to hunt, but he declared that deceased had no right on the premises. McWilliams stated to him that deceased had come with [*607] him and had a right to remain with him. McWilliams further testified that Esteen Glover then stated that appellant would make them leave. At this point appellant appeared on the scene, and, upon learning that the parties were hunting, ordered them to leave. Deceased then attempted to introduce himself to appellant, and offered him his hand. Drawing his gun, appellant told deceased not to touch him. Deceased then backed away from appellant, and "squatted down on his heels." An argument ensued [***3] between McWilliams and appellant with reference to McWilliams' right to be on the premises. McWilliams advised appellant that he did not intend to leave. Appellant then ordered deceased to leave the premises, and pointed his gun at him. Deceased replied that he would not leave until McWilliams went with him. Appellant then shot deceased in the head. At the time the shot was fired deceased's gun was twelve or fourteen feet from him, he being in no manner armed. After the shot was fired McWilliams exclaimed: "My God, Mr. Glover, you have killed that boy." Appellant replied: "G -- d -- him; that is what I intended to do." The foregoing constitutes a brief statement of the occurrence as detailed by the state's witness McWilliams.

JJ

this is a forum where everyone is a badass. Just like drunk people lol. Noone is going to shoot anybody, it is just people trying to look and sound the part of a TUFF KUNTRY BOY!

That is completely irrelevant to this discussion.


Exactly what is the difference between stumbling upon a criminal with a loaded gun on your hunting property and stumbling upon a criminal with a loaded gun on your residential/business property?

I'm not saying my first reaction would be to shoot, but depending on their actions, it's at the top of my options.

If the dude runs away, no, none of us are going to shoot. But if the poacher tries to stand his ground, confront you? What choice do you have?

Man these poaching/tresspassing threads are the best reading!

Wow, an excerpt from an incident in 1934...Now how exactly is that relevant to this thread?

It's in an opinion by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which you should know IS the state's Highest Court for Criminal Appeals. Texas has two (2) Supreme Courts. The Texas Supreme Court for civil cases and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for criminal cases. FYI the case I cited the excerpt from was cited by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as recently as April 29, 1987 in Manning vs. State of Texas, 730 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Crim.App., 1987).

It was simply the first poacher case I ran across, and thought it was interesting, and somewhat entertaining due to the age of the case, although admittedly not directly on point, but with some of the comments regarding poaching who knows? LOL

JJ

That case had nothing to do with poaching. That case was about a man executing another man

LMAO Whatever you think.

"He had posted the premises and would permit no hunting thereon."

Luedecke and McWilliams came on the place with guns and a dog for the purpose of hunting and training the dog. They were told they can't hunt there bye Esteen Glover. They refused to leave. Crazy old man Glover shows up and tells them they can't hunt there (POACHING). They refuse to leave and the nut shoots Luedecke and kills him.

If it had nothing at all to do with POACHING, then I've probably been misreading every appellate opinion, literally 10's of thousands of them, I've read for the last thirty-five (35) years.

I agree the whacko executed the other man, and wrongfully so. However, if the other man/men hadn't been out there POACHING, which is exactly what the hell they were doing, it never would have happened in the first place since they wouldn't have been on the land at all IF THEY WEREN'T OUT THERE POACHING! LOL

JJ

What was the verdict in the case? Did the court see the murder as justified because the man was alledgedly tresspassing?

Prior to the trial the guy had been adjudged to be legally insane. He was convicted of murder at trial, and if you read those facts I quoted of how it happened you can clearly see that it was indeed murder. That was not the question on appeal. The question was with regard to his insanity, evidentiary issues, witness issues, and impeachment. The high court reversed and remanded the case on 4 points of error. The poaching/trespassing were just part of the facts that led to the murder by an already insane individual.

Mr. Glover COULDN'T STAND POACHERS either. However, he was insane and there were probably lots of other things he couldn't stand. LMAO

JJ

Ya guys come onnn... what the heck, if someone goes poaching your land just invite up to the trailer for a couple beers and go ahead and cut him a key to the front gate so he ain't got to slip through the fence next time... they're probably good guys ya know?

Personally, I hate poachers myself, as most folks do. I recognize that an individual may only use such force as is immediately necessary to protect life or property. I have no intent of shooting poachers or dogs. I have no intent of holding a poacher at gunpoint. I WILL contact the GW and the sheriff's office to report poaching, if I think that's necessary. I've been fortunate enough for that to never be necessary on my places in Archer or Clay Counties, or on leases I held in Jack, Young, or Palo Pinto Counties. I hope I never have to.

It's a bad situation, but folks planning to take the law into their own hands against a poacher should bear in mind that the end result may not be as favorable as they think it might. If you ever draw down on one and pull the trigger, you better be sure you have your lawyer's number in your quick dial on your cell phone, as you may be the one needing one.

Use common sense. There was an old saying that if you catch someone breaking into your house and you shoot'em, be sure you dragg'em in the door before making a call. Inside the house is an immediate danger to life and property. Outside the door is not as clear cut. Imagine what it is out in a open pasture where there is no immediate harm to you. If there are multiple folks trespassing/poaching on your property, and there is just YOU, remember that anyone left standing will be testifying that things did NOT go down the way YOU said it did, but rather that you just went psycho and started shooting (as they would say in their own defense). Doesn't really matter whether that is true or not, but the deck could stack against you rather quickly in protecting your own lease or property from poachers.

Obviously not giving you legal advice in any way, but just my thoughts on the situation in my LAY opinion.

JJ

I know that this is probably a wee bit of sarcasm...but poachers are thieves; thugs; lowlife deadbeats that pervert the art of hunting. I won't sacrifice one ounce of my life for theirs, though. I have the local GWs on speed dial and they know by the tone of my voice when something bad is going down. I let them take care of the poachers.

I got my barn and my camper broken into last year at my ranch. Needless to say I was upset. The detective told me verbatim, "If you see people trespassing on your ranch after dark you can shoot them."

I carry a gun in my car at all times, but i would never shoot someone just because because they are on my ranch after dark. I would, however, shoot someone to protect myself or others. I don't know if what the police officer told me was correct, but he said it word for word. I can also attest to the massive frustration and anger it can cause to know that people have, are, or will trespass on your place� And I have a ton invested in my hunting so poachers are the worst kind.

Exactly as you should do, and certainly what I'd recommend for anyone else.

I have no issues addressing poachers in any way. It's HOW they are addressed, as indicated in this thread by some posts, that I have issues with. Send'em to jail, but don't send'em to hell, and join them there yourselves. It just ain't worth it! It's a common sense issue, IMO. Folks trying to do what is right, and may even be just, that lose their common sense makes them the wrongdoer, and they get smoked. Don't want that to happen to anyone here, and I believe we agree totally.

JJ