I’ve known a lot of vegetarians. I was engaged to one once (technically “pre-engaged,” whatever the hell that means). And you know, I don’t think I’ve ever met one I didn’t like. I’ve met some I thought were full of $#!%, but none I didn’t like. I like some hunters who are also full of $#!%.
It’s fun to bust on vegetarians, and they usually take it well. Especially fun are the easy marks, the ones who say, “I’m a vegetarian but I eat fish.” We had a vegetarian friend over to dinner recently who said, “I’m a vegetarian but I eat fish and chicken,” which made me think of a line from The Princess Bride: “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I’ve been meaning to bring this up, as there’s been some disagreement on the subject in your comments here and on other blogs—which is no surprise really, when you consider that different states have different definitions. Some define it as taking game illegally, others more broadly as hunting or fishing illegally. The Michigan DNR actually offers both definitions: “Poacher - a person who hunts, traps, or fishes illegally. Poaching - the illegal taking of fish or wildlife.” Go figure.
Dictionary definitions likewise vary. In a hunting context, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “poacher” as “one who kills or takes wild animals (as game or fish) illegally.” My Webster’s New World bound copy has “poaching” as, “to hunt or catch (game or fish) illegally….”
I favor the broader definition. A person should not have to be successful in his attempt to kill game illegally to be called a poacher.