Not even ten minutes. I told you this research thing was getting stupidly simple.
Google Docs brought up this analysis of poaching in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Archer, Hopkins and Thompson have followed some contemporary observers in
rejecting the view that urban poaching was a response to poverty, and maintained that
it was driven by a thriving commercial market for game which was at its height during
times of prosperity rather than depression. (p. 204)
We were certainly not desperate. Based on the neighborhoods the Harris family lived in, we weren’t terribly rich but we were far from broke; we were solidly lower middle-class, father was a skilled laborer and had the means to move himself and his family from Somerset to Hereford. I think buying the occasional pheasant on the sly to make us feel richer than we really were would be a luxury we could have afforded.
Pheasants are mentioned too:
…the expansion of artiﬁcial rearing of pheasants and partridges meant that it was increasingly difﬁcult for both offenders and the wider community to claim that these birds were wild and consequently ‘fair game’. (P. 207)
I think we can label this one “plausible.” The young man in tweed may have dressed like a titled lord, but it was probably us upwardly-mobile working families who made him rich.