Eagle was killed by poacher, not hunter — there’s a big difference

You may have read recently about the bald eagle that was found with a gunshot wound in Hardeman County back in late October.

If you’ve followed the story closely, I’m sure you also know the eagle died last week while recovering at the Mid-South Raptor Rehabilitation Center from surgery performed at Memphis Veterinary Specialists in Cordova.

When something like that happens, there is always a certain amount of public outrage — and there certainly should be.

Killing an animal that is supposed to be left alone, especially one that stands as a symbol of our country’s freedom, is a good reason for outrage.

The outrage hasn’t bothered me, but some of the terminology has.

I’ve heard at least two people say the eagle was shot by a “hunter,” and that’s just not true.

Hunters follow rules and regulations and contribute heavily to conservation projects every year by purchasing the licenses, permits and stamps they need to go legally into the field.

Once a person strays from those rules and regulations, he forfeits the title of “hunter” and becomes a poacher.

It’s important to recognize the differences between the two.

Hunters wear brightorange clothing to make sure they’ll be seen by others and remain safe while they’re in the woods.

Poachers are cowards who operate outside the law, slipping onto private property without permission and hiding behind trees in hopes of an easy kill.

Hunters have a vested interest in the property where they hunt, and they spend thousands of dollars improving that property to create better habitat for wildlife.

Poachers are content to sit back and let hunters do all of the work for them.

The person who shot and killed the eagle in Hardeman County might have been out hunting that day. No one knows for sure.

But once he made the decision to cross the line, he became the worst kind of poacher — the one who kills for the sake of killing.

What good comes from shooting an eagle?

You can’t hunt bald eagles. In fact, it took decades of hard work by conservation officials to bring their numbers back to the comfortable level where they are now.

I imagine you could probably eat an eagle if you really got that hungry. But I’ve never known anyone who tried it, so that probably wasn’t the motivation for shooting the bird, either.

You can’t have an eagle mounted. Most taxidermists would throw you out of their shops if you walked in with one because they know law enforcement officials will tan their hides for possessing one.

So there couldn’t have been much reasoning for the act beyond simple meanness.

Since the eagle story was published, I’ve also heard a few people question the idea of spending so much time and money to save one bird. The total price tag for the eagle’s surgery and care was more than $5,000.

But it makes perfect sense to me.

Leaving an animal to die would have been a white flag of surrender.

The eagle wasn’t killed by a hunter.

It was killed by a poacher — and poachers simply can’t be allowed to win. To reach reporter Bryan Brasher, call 901-529-2343; e-mail: brasher@commercialappeal. com. His blog can be found at MidsouthOutdoorsBlog.com or follow him at twitter.com/ Bryan_Brasher.