Does “legal poaching” exist?












6















I heard the illegal poaching being uttered so many times in a TV show, about animals, that my ear of a non-native speaker, made me questioning the validity of the term.



I have made some Ngram research here and looked up _poaching on Wikipedia, but that results haven't given me a satisfactory answer. As a result, I'm still puzzled.



According to Wikipedia, poaching is defined as:




the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals.




Hence my question: can there be a legal and an illegal poaching?



Please let me know your thoughts on this.



PS: I am familiar with the word poaching since I first watched the movie Robin Hood, starring Kevin Costner, Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Morgan Freeman, etc., almost two decades ago.










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    There are many pleonasms in daily use: temper tantrum, future prospects, foreign imports. It's best not to get too worked up about idioms; like other free gifts from the past, the English language is not absolutely perfect.

    – choster
    6 hours ago
















6















I heard the illegal poaching being uttered so many times in a TV show, about animals, that my ear of a non-native speaker, made me questioning the validity of the term.



I have made some Ngram research here and looked up _poaching on Wikipedia, but that results haven't given me a satisfactory answer. As a result, I'm still puzzled.



According to Wikipedia, poaching is defined as:




the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals.




Hence my question: can there be a legal and an illegal poaching?



Please let me know your thoughts on this.



PS: I am familiar with the word poaching since I first watched the movie Robin Hood, starring Kevin Costner, Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Morgan Freeman, etc., almost two decades ago.










share|improve this question




















  • 2





    There are many pleonasms in daily use: temper tantrum, future prospects, foreign imports. It's best not to get too worked up about idioms; like other free gifts from the past, the English language is not absolutely perfect.

    – choster
    6 hours ago














6












6








6








I heard the illegal poaching being uttered so many times in a TV show, about animals, that my ear of a non-native speaker, made me questioning the validity of the term.



I have made some Ngram research here and looked up _poaching on Wikipedia, but that results haven't given me a satisfactory answer. As a result, I'm still puzzled.



According to Wikipedia, poaching is defined as:




the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals.




Hence my question: can there be a legal and an illegal poaching?



Please let me know your thoughts on this.



PS: I am familiar with the word poaching since I first watched the movie Robin Hood, starring Kevin Costner, Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Morgan Freeman, etc., almost two decades ago.










share|improve this question
















I heard the illegal poaching being uttered so many times in a TV show, about animals, that my ear of a non-native speaker, made me questioning the validity of the term.



I have made some Ngram research here and looked up _poaching on Wikipedia, but that results haven't given me a satisfactory answer. As a result, I'm still puzzled.



According to Wikipedia, poaching is defined as:




the illegal hunting or capturing of wild animals.




Hence my question: can there be a legal and an illegal poaching?



Please let me know your thoughts on this.



PS: I am familiar with the word poaching since I first watched the movie Robin Hood, starring Kevin Costner, Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Morgan Freeman, etc., almost two decades ago.







meaning-in-context phrase-meaning vocabulary






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 49 mins ago









user45266

1,120113




1,120113










asked 7 hours ago









Lucian SavaLucian Sava

9,078113073




9,078113073








  • 2





    There are many pleonasms in daily use: temper tantrum, future prospects, foreign imports. It's best not to get too worked up about idioms; like other free gifts from the past, the English language is not absolutely perfect.

    – choster
    6 hours ago














  • 2





    There are many pleonasms in daily use: temper tantrum, future prospects, foreign imports. It's best not to get too worked up about idioms; like other free gifts from the past, the English language is not absolutely perfect.

    – choster
    6 hours ago








2




2





There are many pleonasms in daily use: temper tantrum, future prospects, foreign imports. It's best not to get too worked up about idioms; like other free gifts from the past, the English language is not absolutely perfect.

– choster
6 hours ago





There are many pleonasms in daily use: temper tantrum, future prospects, foreign imports. It's best not to get too worked up about idioms; like other free gifts from the past, the English language is not absolutely perfect.

– choster
6 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















5














Poaching is always illegal, so the adjective "illegal" is redundant. There is a (rare) word to describe this kind of redundancy: "Pleonastic". It means using more words than needed.



Many style guides recommend reducing redundancy in your writing: You should say "tuna" not "tuna fish". You should not say "the two twins" (since twins implies two) you do not need to say "new innovations" (since innovations are always new).



But pleonastic expressions are not ungrammatical, and some are very common and natural, especially in speech or less formal writing. Sometimes a writer will use a redundant word to emphasise a point.




There are three types of hunting: Legal trophy hunting, illegal poaching and subsistence hunting for food.




The author wants to emphasise and contrast trophy hunting, which is legal, with poaching, which is illegal.






share|improve this answer
























  • Hares are classed as wild animals but still hunted for food not as a trophy...

    – Solar Mike
    6 hours ago











  • What is your point? Lots of animals are hunted for food.

    – James K
    6 hours ago



















2














The very definition of poaching contains the word "illegal", so it is a bit repetitive to say illegal poaching.




the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission.




Such repetitive constructions are used to add emphasis, but are not technically needed.






share|improve this answer































    0














    The definition of poaching as illegal is correct, but it doesn't take any account of the huge range of activities which are referred to as "poaching".



    At one extreme is the extermination of animal species such as elephant and rhino for their ivory and horns (used in traditional medicine). At the other is the widespread practice (for example in the rural parts of the UK) of harvesting a bit of surplus wildlife (for example wild rabbits) for food. Both are technically illegal, but the rabbits are still doing fine after more than 1000 years of low level poaching, and if poachers didn't kill a few of them they would be killed by other means, as agricultural pests, in any case. So long as the rabbit-poachers don't cause any trouble (by damaging crops, noise disturbance at night, setting traps which catch or kill other animals, or whatever) nobody is going to make much effort to criminalize them, though of course organizations like PETA may take a different view of the matter.



    Ngrams show that the use of "illegal poaching" is tiny compared with just "poaching", though the use of "illegal poaching" has grown rapidly in recent times.






    share|improve this answer































      0














      The word "poaching" can be used metaphorically to mean "hiring someone away from another organization". It usually implies that that person being poached was either important to their former organization, or expected to be important to their new organization, or both.



      In countries where individuals are free to choose for whom they will work, this version of poaching is legal. In situations where trade secrets or national security secrets are involved, there may be severe restrictions on what the poached employee can tell their new employer.





      share























        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "481"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });














        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f199258%2fdoes-legal-poaching-exist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        5














        Poaching is always illegal, so the adjective "illegal" is redundant. There is a (rare) word to describe this kind of redundancy: "Pleonastic". It means using more words than needed.



        Many style guides recommend reducing redundancy in your writing: You should say "tuna" not "tuna fish". You should not say "the two twins" (since twins implies two) you do not need to say "new innovations" (since innovations are always new).



        But pleonastic expressions are not ungrammatical, and some are very common and natural, especially in speech or less formal writing. Sometimes a writer will use a redundant word to emphasise a point.




        There are three types of hunting: Legal trophy hunting, illegal poaching and subsistence hunting for food.




        The author wants to emphasise and contrast trophy hunting, which is legal, with poaching, which is illegal.






        share|improve this answer
























        • Hares are classed as wild animals but still hunted for food not as a trophy...

          – Solar Mike
          6 hours ago











        • What is your point? Lots of animals are hunted for food.

          – James K
          6 hours ago
















        5














        Poaching is always illegal, so the adjective "illegal" is redundant. There is a (rare) word to describe this kind of redundancy: "Pleonastic". It means using more words than needed.



        Many style guides recommend reducing redundancy in your writing: You should say "tuna" not "tuna fish". You should not say "the two twins" (since twins implies two) you do not need to say "new innovations" (since innovations are always new).



        But pleonastic expressions are not ungrammatical, and some are very common and natural, especially in speech or less formal writing. Sometimes a writer will use a redundant word to emphasise a point.




        There are three types of hunting: Legal trophy hunting, illegal poaching and subsistence hunting for food.




        The author wants to emphasise and contrast trophy hunting, which is legal, with poaching, which is illegal.






        share|improve this answer
























        • Hares are classed as wild animals but still hunted for food not as a trophy...

          – Solar Mike
          6 hours ago











        • What is your point? Lots of animals are hunted for food.

          – James K
          6 hours ago














        5












        5








        5







        Poaching is always illegal, so the adjective "illegal" is redundant. There is a (rare) word to describe this kind of redundancy: "Pleonastic". It means using more words than needed.



        Many style guides recommend reducing redundancy in your writing: You should say "tuna" not "tuna fish". You should not say "the two twins" (since twins implies two) you do not need to say "new innovations" (since innovations are always new).



        But pleonastic expressions are not ungrammatical, and some are very common and natural, especially in speech or less formal writing. Sometimes a writer will use a redundant word to emphasise a point.




        There are three types of hunting: Legal trophy hunting, illegal poaching and subsistence hunting for food.




        The author wants to emphasise and contrast trophy hunting, which is legal, with poaching, which is illegal.






        share|improve this answer













        Poaching is always illegal, so the adjective "illegal" is redundant. There is a (rare) word to describe this kind of redundancy: "Pleonastic". It means using more words than needed.



        Many style guides recommend reducing redundancy in your writing: You should say "tuna" not "tuna fish". You should not say "the two twins" (since twins implies two) you do not need to say "new innovations" (since innovations are always new).



        But pleonastic expressions are not ungrammatical, and some are very common and natural, especially in speech or less formal writing. Sometimes a writer will use a redundant word to emphasise a point.




        There are three types of hunting: Legal trophy hunting, illegal poaching and subsistence hunting for food.




        The author wants to emphasise and contrast trophy hunting, which is legal, with poaching, which is illegal.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 6 hours ago









        James KJames K

        37.3k13891




        37.3k13891













        • Hares are classed as wild animals but still hunted for food not as a trophy...

          – Solar Mike
          6 hours ago











        • What is your point? Lots of animals are hunted for food.

          – James K
          6 hours ago



















        • Hares are classed as wild animals but still hunted for food not as a trophy...

          – Solar Mike
          6 hours ago











        • What is your point? Lots of animals are hunted for food.

          – James K
          6 hours ago

















        Hares are classed as wild animals but still hunted for food not as a trophy...

        – Solar Mike
        6 hours ago





        Hares are classed as wild animals but still hunted for food not as a trophy...

        – Solar Mike
        6 hours ago













        What is your point? Lots of animals are hunted for food.

        – James K
        6 hours ago





        What is your point? Lots of animals are hunted for food.

        – James K
        6 hours ago













        2














        The very definition of poaching contains the word "illegal", so it is a bit repetitive to say illegal poaching.




        the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission.




        Such repetitive constructions are used to add emphasis, but are not technically needed.






        share|improve this answer




























          2














          The very definition of poaching contains the word "illegal", so it is a bit repetitive to say illegal poaching.




          the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission.




          Such repetitive constructions are used to add emphasis, but are not technically needed.






          share|improve this answer


























            2












            2








            2







            The very definition of poaching contains the word "illegal", so it is a bit repetitive to say illegal poaching.




            the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission.




            Such repetitive constructions are used to add emphasis, but are not technically needed.






            share|improve this answer













            The very definition of poaching contains the word "illegal", so it is a bit repetitive to say illegal poaching.




            the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission.




            Such repetitive constructions are used to add emphasis, but are not technically needed.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 6 hours ago









            JPhi1618JPhi1618

            1213




            1213























                0














                The definition of poaching as illegal is correct, but it doesn't take any account of the huge range of activities which are referred to as "poaching".



                At one extreme is the extermination of animal species such as elephant and rhino for their ivory and horns (used in traditional medicine). At the other is the widespread practice (for example in the rural parts of the UK) of harvesting a bit of surplus wildlife (for example wild rabbits) for food. Both are technically illegal, but the rabbits are still doing fine after more than 1000 years of low level poaching, and if poachers didn't kill a few of them they would be killed by other means, as agricultural pests, in any case. So long as the rabbit-poachers don't cause any trouble (by damaging crops, noise disturbance at night, setting traps which catch or kill other animals, or whatever) nobody is going to make much effort to criminalize them, though of course organizations like PETA may take a different view of the matter.



                Ngrams show that the use of "illegal poaching" is tiny compared with just "poaching", though the use of "illegal poaching" has grown rapidly in recent times.






                share|improve this answer




























                  0














                  The definition of poaching as illegal is correct, but it doesn't take any account of the huge range of activities which are referred to as "poaching".



                  At one extreme is the extermination of animal species such as elephant and rhino for their ivory and horns (used in traditional medicine). At the other is the widespread practice (for example in the rural parts of the UK) of harvesting a bit of surplus wildlife (for example wild rabbits) for food. Both are technically illegal, but the rabbits are still doing fine after more than 1000 years of low level poaching, and if poachers didn't kill a few of them they would be killed by other means, as agricultural pests, in any case. So long as the rabbit-poachers don't cause any trouble (by damaging crops, noise disturbance at night, setting traps which catch or kill other animals, or whatever) nobody is going to make much effort to criminalize them, though of course organizations like PETA may take a different view of the matter.



                  Ngrams show that the use of "illegal poaching" is tiny compared with just "poaching", though the use of "illegal poaching" has grown rapidly in recent times.






                  share|improve this answer


























                    0












                    0








                    0







                    The definition of poaching as illegal is correct, but it doesn't take any account of the huge range of activities which are referred to as "poaching".



                    At one extreme is the extermination of animal species such as elephant and rhino for their ivory and horns (used in traditional medicine). At the other is the widespread practice (for example in the rural parts of the UK) of harvesting a bit of surplus wildlife (for example wild rabbits) for food. Both are technically illegal, but the rabbits are still doing fine after more than 1000 years of low level poaching, and if poachers didn't kill a few of them they would be killed by other means, as agricultural pests, in any case. So long as the rabbit-poachers don't cause any trouble (by damaging crops, noise disturbance at night, setting traps which catch or kill other animals, or whatever) nobody is going to make much effort to criminalize them, though of course organizations like PETA may take a different view of the matter.



                    Ngrams show that the use of "illegal poaching" is tiny compared with just "poaching", though the use of "illegal poaching" has grown rapidly in recent times.






                    share|improve this answer













                    The definition of poaching as illegal is correct, but it doesn't take any account of the huge range of activities which are referred to as "poaching".



                    At one extreme is the extermination of animal species such as elephant and rhino for their ivory and horns (used in traditional medicine). At the other is the widespread practice (for example in the rural parts of the UK) of harvesting a bit of surplus wildlife (for example wild rabbits) for food. Both are technically illegal, but the rabbits are still doing fine after more than 1000 years of low level poaching, and if poachers didn't kill a few of them they would be killed by other means, as agricultural pests, in any case. So long as the rabbit-poachers don't cause any trouble (by damaging crops, noise disturbance at night, setting traps which catch or kill other animals, or whatever) nobody is going to make much effort to criminalize them, though of course organizations like PETA may take a different view of the matter.



                    Ngrams show that the use of "illegal poaching" is tiny compared with just "poaching", though the use of "illegal poaching" has grown rapidly in recent times.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 2 hours ago









                    alephzeroalephzero

                    2,374414




                    2,374414























                        0














                        The word "poaching" can be used metaphorically to mean "hiring someone away from another organization". It usually implies that that person being poached was either important to their former organization, or expected to be important to their new organization, or both.



                        In countries where individuals are free to choose for whom they will work, this version of poaching is legal. In situations where trade secrets or national security secrets are involved, there may be severe restrictions on what the poached employee can tell their new employer.





                        share




























                          0














                          The word "poaching" can be used metaphorically to mean "hiring someone away from another organization". It usually implies that that person being poached was either important to their former organization, or expected to be important to their new organization, or both.



                          In countries where individuals are free to choose for whom they will work, this version of poaching is legal. In situations where trade secrets or national security secrets are involved, there may be severe restrictions on what the poached employee can tell their new employer.





                          share


























                            0












                            0








                            0







                            The word "poaching" can be used metaphorically to mean "hiring someone away from another organization". It usually implies that that person being poached was either important to their former organization, or expected to be important to their new organization, or both.



                            In countries where individuals are free to choose for whom they will work, this version of poaching is legal. In situations where trade secrets or national security secrets are involved, there may be severe restrictions on what the poached employee can tell their new employer.





                            share













                            The word "poaching" can be used metaphorically to mean "hiring someone away from another organization". It usually implies that that person being poached was either important to their former organization, or expected to be important to their new organization, or both.



                            In countries where individuals are free to choose for whom they will work, this version of poaching is legal. In situations where trade secrets or national security secrets are involved, there may be severe restrictions on what the poached employee can tell their new employer.






                            share











                            share


                            share










                            answered 4 mins ago









                            JasperJasper

                            18k43568




                            18k43568






























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded




















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f199258%2fdoes-legal-poaching-exist%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

                                Single-Malt-Whisky

                                Czorneboh