However, that definition is derived from the one meaning to hunt, illegally or without permission, on someone else's property. It retains the implication of un

However, that definition is derived from the one meaning to hunt, illegally or without permission, on someone else's property. It retains the implication of unfairly taking or appropriating something belonging to someone else. Read every other definition on the page you linked. Here are some more: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach This one has essentially the same definition from your link. But notice the example usage: "They were furious when one of their best managers was poached by another company." Why furious? Because they feel someone took something belonging to them -- that is, the employment opportunity of person. Here's another, where the most benign definition doesn't even make the list: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach > for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." I'm not making an abstract point there. You must be unaware of the history of collusion between Apple and Google where they agreed not to poach each other's employees. There's your lack of agency. You can't choose an option that is withheld from you. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...