Thread: Poaching, let's get this straight

Originally Posted by 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.

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..

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

Originally Posted by kawekakid

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.

Originally Posted by Sidney

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.

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

Originally Posted by sdogg73

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 – New Zealand Legislation
  
  

Originally Posted by Wirehunt

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 2013
• Financial Markets (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2013

Originally Posted by Wirehunt

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.

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).

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).

Originally Posted by sdogg73

......................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 – 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.

Look at you cut and pasters go

Originally Posted by moonhunt

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?

Originally Posted by Gibo

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...."

I don't understand myself either

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