Commonage-problems with Access

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.