Commonage-problems with Access

ivanthehunter

Commonage whats the rule here.. i have access to lots of commonage and have writen permission by one of the common owners.. Another Commonage owner told be to clear off.. BUT i said no.. As i have written permission by the owner(even though he is an owner in common) He is still the owner.. Surly it is next to impossible to get permission from all the holders so there for i only need one mans go ahead;)

dresden8

Here we go again. This one should be good.

ivanthehunter

dresden8 wrote: »

Here we go again. This one should be good.

Please stay on topic ........... I,m training to become a mod:mad:

BryanL

don't mind access, you should be applying for free legal aid.
then you could sit down with them and ask them legal questions all day long
Bryan

cavan shooter

Had similiar problem when as a club we wanted to use a forested/scrubby area for a pen site. We needed ALL the owners to agree ended up writing to a son of a fella who lived in america. We also had to get an agreement written by a solicitor. My view you would need everyone to agree you can shoot, Sorry:(

johngalway

Like has been said, you'll probably need permission from all "owners" of that area of commonage to DO something, but one can usually STOP an activity. That's why, years back, Duchas wanted to buy one share on any and all commonages they could get their hands on so they could stop certain things.

Lol @ free legal aid, I like it.

foxshooter243

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Please stay on topic ........... I,m training to become a mod:mad:

pure class lol:D:D

NoNameRanger

You will find that the sporting rights probably didn't get included in the commonage. So go look for the person with the sporting rights if you want to hunt there.

Mellor

beat me to it Ranger,
shooting rights are not fixed to ownership

cavan shooter

And how do you find that????. Could this be going back, way back?

NoNameRanger

I suspect you would have to go through the land registry office if you couldn't locate the owner of the sporting rights. Quite possible you would have to go way back. Alot of people are doing this now and buying the sporting rights of old estates, not always very popular with the fee simple landowners and other right holders. Especially unpopular with hunters that thought they had the shooting on this land.

foxhunter

NoNameRanger wrote: »

I suspect you would have to go through the land registry office if you couldn't locate the owner of the sporting rights. Quite possible you would have to go way back. Alot of people are doing this now and buying the sporting rights of old estates, not always very popular with the fee simple landowners and other right holders. Especially unpopular with hunters that thought they had the shooting on this land.

There are a few cases going through the courts at the moment relating to
this topic.
I know of two down this end of the country.

ivanthehunter

well even i am annoyed to here that news about shooting rights being bought up.. or should i say hunting rights.. its like pulling the rug from under shooters...
Say farmer X owns the land but not the hunting rights, can he himself hunt on the land he owns..

NoNameRanger

ivanthehunter wrote: »

well even i am annoyed to here that news about shooting rights being bought up.. or should i say hunting rights.. its like pulling the rug from under shooters...
Say farmer X owns the land but not the hunting rights, can he himself hunt on the land he owns..

Say hunter X owns the sporting rights but not the land, can he himself put his sheep on this land?
Answer: no in both cases!:)

Farmer may have a case if he is granted a Secton 42 licence to protect his crops, but in this case he would normally nominate the holder of the sporting rights as a nominated stalker. Unless of course they don't get on with eachother.

IDon'tKnow!

If you are the owner of the shooting rights on the land, but not the land owner can the land owner refuse you access to the land?

ivanthehunter

So say i own commomage (part owner1/700th) . If i am overran with rabbits and hungry fox, do i have to sit there and wait for lord muck to call in an exersice his rights.:eek:
"i bloody well think not old chap(s):mad:

NoNameRanger

IDon'tKnow! wrote: »

If you are the owner of the shooting rights on the land, but not the land owner can the land owner refuse you access to the land?

No. Not to the best of my knowledge.

NoNameRanger

ivanthehunter wrote: »

So say i own commomage (part owner1/700th) . If i am overran with rabbits and hungry fox, do i have to sit there and wait for lord muck to call in an exersice his rights.:eek:
"i bloody well think not old chap(s):mad:

Well there's another one for you to look into. Can't wait to see how you interpret the law on this one. Keep us informed when you manage to work it out.:) 1/700th???

meathstevie

Folks, I don't want to go down a semi-political road but as far as this state is concerned I think all feudal and estate rights that date back to before independence are well gone. Unless that is if the owners of these lands and rights became legitimate owners post independence. If this sort of malarkey was still in force you theoritically still need permission from Lizzy Von Saksen-Coburg to hunt red deer.

cavan shooter

meathstevie I believe you are right I think alot of commonage came about from the divvying up of estates etc in the 20's

rrpc

meathstevie wrote: »

Folks, I don't want to go down a semi-political road but as far as this state is concerned I think all feudal and estate rights that date back to before independence are well gone. Unless that is if the owners of these lands and rights became legitimate owners post independence. If this sort of malarkey was still in force you theoritically still need permission from Lizzy Von Saksen-Coburg to hunt red deer.

I think you're wrong there stevie. I believe for example a lot of land in Sandymount on which houses are currently built still have rents payable to landlords from bygone ages.

Very small rents, but permission still must be sought and granted before any changes may be made.

BryanL

most river fishing rights are still retained from way before independence.

NoNameRanger

The simplist way to find out who owns what rights on land is to get the folio number of the land or whatever information you have, townsland, current owner,etc, etc and go to www.landregistry.ie. There you can sign up for an EAS account and find out what are all the details of all burdens registered against the property. These would include mortgages, rights of way, fishing and sporting rights etc.
In the case that the owner of the sporting rights cannot be found or that they are with the tenants. One tenant may give you permission and you may work with that permission until such time as you are told by another tenant that you do not have permission anymore. So if one guy says you can and the other says you can't well then you can't because you will be hunting on his land without permission because he owns a percentage of the land. Therefore you would be in breach of section 44 of the wildlife act. So in reality you would need the permission of every tenant to be hunting on commonage where the sporting rights are held by the tenants. And where they are held by a single individual you would need to find that individual to attain permission.
A farmer cannot legally kill or hunt any wild animal on his own land unless he either owns the sporting rights or gets permisson from the holder of the sporting rights or he does so under licence (birds derogation and or section 42 wildlife act) to protect livestock or crops.
Thats my understanding of it anyway, unless i've missed something?.:)

foxshooter243

There was a court case in Donegal where gun club members purchased shooting rights of an estate which was split up after the formation of the state-the rights were purchased from a london solicitors office-anyway
when the club tried to exercise said rights the landowners took umbridge.
The result was an expensive court case-the club lost out and the farmers
banned them from their lands-the club is now more or less defunct this happened 8 or 9 years ago.....

ivanthehunter

NoNameRanger wrote: »

Well there's another one for you to look into. Can't wait to see how you interpret the law on this one. Keep us informed when you manage to work it out.:) 1/700th???

Right I'll get stuck in here-- the law (i think) says that you can only be traspassing/hunting with out permission if you do not have the owners or the occuipers grant of approval.... This being the case you can shove your sporting rights where the rabbits run:D
And as far as commonage goes if i am part owner then i am the owner.
The only thing thats still un sure is,, as the owner of commonage, i say- give permission to a local garda to shoot on my commonage, but while shooting he meets a convicted theif that he put down, problem is the theif is a part owner of the same commonage and tell the cop to sling his hook.. In theory both land owners are right... but you shold never shout at a garda:cool: he might make super on day:D

spideog7

Alright the Thief-Garda analogy is a bit off the wall but that's a good point, what if the owner of a holding on the commonage wants to shoot over it themselves ?

From my reading of Section 44 I reckon it has no mention of commonage so it seems to be open to interpretation, although the law does seem to come down on the side of the land owner denying entry, cause in all cases the onus is on the hunter to show proof of status (written permission etc.).

ivanthehunter

:rolleyes:fair play to you man you can read, here have a doggie treat!!!!sorry for being smart bast**d but i'm sick of getting it i9n the neck all week.. your cool though

noname whatsw your response dude

Banjax

Any farm will have a land folio file, this is duplicate of what is held in the land registery office. The sporting rights, if there are any, are usually detailed in it.

They don't really have any weight in modern law anymore. The laws of property and trespass overide them. There are many laws and odds and ends of legislature that have been carried over from pre-independance, the sporting rights issue is one of them.
If the "holder" of the sporting rights takes a gun and goes onto that land, without permission from the landowner, then they are technically guilty of armed trespass as I understand it.

Because that old bit of law is at odds with current law, it will always go to a judge to be sorted out. And a judge would be very slow to turn over current law.
If you consider that the vast majority of land in Ireland was once owned by lords this-that-or-the-other, and divided by barony, then almost nobody has the right to hunt their own land, as the sporting rights still (in most cases) reside with the chinless inbred decendants of the so-called original owners.
But this is obviously not the case.

ivanthehunter

ORDER! ORDER!
order in the house!!:mad:
If such a thing as sporting rights exists, it would be hard for a farmer to run lord muck off his patch!!! but under the most resent law, lord muck could not tell the owner/occupier or anyone acting with the consent of the owner/occupier to stop shootingThis could only be resolved by a civil action.
In short the garda would have no impact in this area unless directed by the court. an injunction should protect the land owner against this until a court case result allows,, note: an injunction may or may not have a time frame set out by the judge, where no time frame was given the max time is 6years and one day.. this will put a dent in lord muck.. hopefully he dies.
Lets leave the sporting rights with the Titanic:D.... and push the boat out on the commonage..
The issue is not permission to shoot on common land, but a refusal from a third party who is also a land holder.

bunny shooter

I reckon the best thing for you to do Ivan is go bother a solicitor with this ! By the time you've paid his bill for your stupid questions and interpretations of the law you'd be declared bankrupt and hopefully your PC would be taken to help pay the bill. Then we'd be returned to the harmonious place we had before you found us.

IDon'tKnow!

Maybe this is not a point of law, and more to do with manners. If the land owner doesn’t want you to shoot on his land (or land they have a share of) for what ever there reasons. Then maybe you shouldn’t shoot over there land.

dresden8

Is the point of this thread we choose to believe the owner who says yes rather than the owner who says no?

That is so ****ed up on so many levels.

ivanthehunter

:eek:sorry for side tracking here again back to sporting rights,, it seems that they do exist and the law makes ref to them in the 1976 wildlife act:eek:
Anyway putting that in context, sporting rights seem to pertain to game. ie.protected animals and birds and as such would leave vermin to you the peasant! which is better than a kick in the teeth..It would seem that if you have the owners/occupiers consent to shoot vermin this means that lord muck who is after the game birds can not tell you to clear out of his patch.. sorry about that
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0039/sec0028.html#zza39y1976s28

It wasn't me!

That's actually an interesting possibility.

NoNameRanger

ivanthehunter wrote: »

:eek:sorry for side tracking here again back to sporting rights,, it seems that they do exist and the law makes ref to them in the 1976 wildlife act:eek:
Anyway putting that in context, sporting rights seem to pertain to game. ie.protected animals and birds and as such would leave vermin to you the peasant! which is better than a kick in the teeth..It would seem that if you have the owners/occupiers consent to shoot vermin this means that lord muck who is after the game birds can not tell you to clear out of his patch.. sorry about that
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0039/sec0028.html#zza39y1976s28

Incorrect Ivan. Read section 44 of the act below. Again this is an combination of the 1976 & 2000 act and not an offical legal copy. I have put the relevant parts in bold for you.

Coillte own alot of land that they don't own the sporting rights of and this land is hunted by the owners of the sporting rights, it appears that coillte can do nothing about this. Considering the revenue that coillte get from leasing deer hunting and bird shoots and the damage that is being done to their crops by deer on these lands; you'd think they'd have done something about these shooting rights if they could.

Ivan go read the Bible, I'd love to see what you'd interpret from that:) The next Da Vinci code no doubt.:D;)

44.—(1) Any person who not being the owner or occupier of land—
( a ) with a firearm or with a device, instrument or missile mentioned in section 72 (7) of this Act hunts a wild bird or wild animal on the land or moves or drives such a bird or such an animal off the land in order so to hunt it,
( b ) enters on the land for the purpose of so hunting wild birds or wild animals,
( c ) carries on the land—
(i) any firearm, or
(ii) any net, or other weapon, instrument or device capable of being used for hunting a wild bird or a wild animal,
or",
( d ) shoots over or into the land,
without the permission either of the person who is the owner or the occupier of the land or, in case some other person is entitled to enjoy sporting rights over the land, that other person, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Where a person who is neither the owner nor the occupier of land carries on the land a firearm, other weapon or device (or a part thereof) described in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section, any of the following persons may demand of him (and take when given) his name and address, namely:
( a ) the owner or occupier of the land or a person authorised by him to exercise on his behalf the powers exercisable by such owner or occupier under this section,
( b ) a person who is entitled to enjoy sporting rights over the land or some other person so authorised by him to exercise on his behalf the powers exercisable by him under this section,
(bb) an authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána,",
( c ) the holder, or a person deemed pursuant to section 29 (5) of this Act to be the holder, of a licence granted under that section;
provided that the power conferred by this section on a person mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection shall only be exercisable on the production by him of either a current licence granted to him pursuant to the said section 29 or a current firearm certificate granted to him and endorsed in accordance with the requirements of subsection (8) of that section.
(2A) An authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána in exercising a power under subsection (2) of this section may seize any firearm, other weapon or device or part thereof.,
(3) A person who refuses or who fails to give his correct name and address on a demand therefor being duly made pursuant to this section or who on such demand gives a name and address which is false or misleading shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Summary proceedings for an offence under this section may be prosecuted by—
( a ) a person who at the time at which the offence is alleged to have been committed (in this subsection referred to as the relevant time) is the owner or is in occupation of the land in relation to which the offence is alleged (in this subsection referred to as the relevant land),
( b ) any individual who as regards the relevant land is at the relevant time entitled to enjoy sporting rights over such land.
( c ) and in the name of the person who at the relevant time is the secretary of a recognised body which at such time is entitled to enjoy sporting rights over the relevant land.
provided that such an offence shall only be prosecuted by the secretary of a recognised body if,
(i) prior to the relevant time a notice stating that sporting rights specified in the notice over land so specified have been reserved for the body is published in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the relevant land is situate, and
(ii) the land so specified comprises or includes the relevant land.
(5) The Minister may by regulations declare any association, club, society or other body of persons which has for or amongst its objects the conservation of game to be a recognised body for the purposes of this section, and any body to which regulations under this subsection for the time being relate is in this section referred to as a recognised body.
(6) Subject to compliance with the requirements of the proviso to subsection (4) of this section, a notice published for the purposes of section 15 of the Game Preservation Act, 1930 (repealed by this Act), shall be regarded as having been published for the purposes of this Act.
(7) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall not be necessary for the prosecutor to prove that, at the time of the offence, a defendant
(a) was on the land without lawful authority, or
(b) was not the owner or occupier of the land,
and in case a defendant claims that he was on the land with lawful authority or is either the owner or occupier of the land, the onus of proving such authority, or that he is the owner or occupier of the land, shall be on the defendant..
(8) In this section "game" means any exempted wild mammal or any protected wild bird which is of a species specified in an order under section 24 of this Act.

ivanthehunter

Man killed by red tape:D
shot down. What if you bought a share of the land for one euro,,, ha ha wouldnt you be owner occupier and there for would be allowd to walk around with a gun..

spideog7

IDon'tKnow! wrote: »

Maybe this is not a point of law, and more to do with manners. If the land owner doesn’t want you to shoot on his land (or land they have a share of) for what ever there reasons. Then maybe you shouldn’t shoot over there land.

Not if they don't have manners and their only reason for telling you not to shoot over it is to spite you
Plus if you have a share in it surely you have the right to shoot it, maybe not give other's permission to do so but you certainly have your own right !! Of course if it's a normal green field amongst hundreds of others that you do have permission to shoot then I understand that it would just be showing blatant disregard. But normally commonage is rough ground which was too hard to physically divide be it bog, marsh, turlough etc. and this is often the best and only place around to shoot birds who like the cover and rough.

ivanthehunter

The law is set by a precedence of case.. Basically an Irish court ruled that where shared ownership exists, it is only fair that a part owner is allowed a reasonable number of people at anyone time share his enjoyment of these lands. and any rights which my be attached.. i have just bought 3 books for the study of Irish land law and land law in general..
So permission is only required from one of the owners, but the number of people he gives permission to is not limitless.. This is all assuming that he/she has the sporting rights..

ivanthehunter

foxshooter243 wrote: »

There was a court case in Donegal where gun club members purchased shooting rights of an estate which was split up after the formation of the state-the rights were purchased from a london solicitors office-anyway
when the club tried to exercise said rights the landowners took umbridge.
The result was an expensive court case-the club lost out and the farmers
banned them from their lands-the club is now more or less defunct this happened 8 or 9 years ago.....

Any idea where i could look over this court case:: this would have implications to the Irish law as it would change Irish law by precedence. does any body from donegal know of the names of the parties involved,, just pm me,,

Grizzly 45

Dont be so sure that all old British law is still not used or applied here.Just two examples I can think of to demonstrate is ;The office of Sherrif and Baliff.These two offices were abolished by the Free State on it's foundation,due to their oppressive nature.Yet they still exist to this day!!So next question is;If this office no longer exists under the laws of the State,why is it still used???
Also why do we still recognise titles of nobility here???We all know a Lord such and such,although they have no administrative powers in the Republic [some still do have a seat in the house of Lords in Westminister].
Why are they still referred to by their title in offical Irish documents???
What I am saying by these examples is;be careful of thinking old law is still not applicable anymore here.Irish law is still built on old imperial British law,so there is a good chance it stillapplies.