Shooting Access

Sfinn

Could someone clarify the following

If someone has shooting rights, do they have to have permission from the land owner to trespass on his/her land.

I understand the joe blogs needs permission from the land owner to trespass and shoot vermin. But in order to shoot game they also need permission from the owner of the shooting rights. Wildlife Act 1976 Section 44 Unlawful hunting or entry on land and other miscellaneous matters & WILDLIFE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2000, Amendment of section 44 (unlawful hunting or entry on land and other miscellaneous matters) of Principal Act.

It just the situation in relation to the person with the shooting rights access to land owner?

whitser

if you have permission from the landowner then your not tresspassing. you cant get permission to tresspass. not sure about shooting game as to vermin. on all most of my farms have gun clubs on them. i dont shoot roosters,only hunt foxes and other vermin so there's no hassle.

Sfinn

lets put this way, over the weekend a party of 2 came onto my land and quoted the Wildlife act. when i challenged them . They stated the they did not need permission from me to shoot on my land as they owned the shooting rights.

A syndicate has recently bought an old house with sporting rights locally. they stated that i could shoot vermin, but only they could only shoot the game (pheasents, snipe, woodcock, duck etc)

I'm trying to get in touch with my solicitor at the moment for clarification? i just thought someone might have the answer.

whitser

when you say your land, do you mean you own it?

Sfinn

whitser wrote: »

when you say your land, do you mean you own it?

Yup, i'm the registered owner, its fence etc.

whitser

just re read it now. its your land so, as far as im aware no one has a right to walk your land without your say so. also,that pair sound like a right pair of stools. lads like that should be fcuked out of any club. i would hammer them if i was you. there cna be an issue with hunters over rights but the actual land owner tell anyone he wants to fcuk off his land.

Sfinn

Thats what i thought. its no different than hill walkers, they need permission.

It just when these had shotguns and two dogs and quoted the wildlife act that they did not need permission. it kind of through me.

I will also clarify with the solicitor. I know the ranger can come onto you land.

Sharpie

It was discussed here before so this thread might be of interest...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055208777

Vegeta

That's a tough one alright and to be honest I don't have the answer as its never something I have dealt with.

I hope someone can come up with the correct answer.

Sure someone can have shooting rights but do those rights automatically permit access to the land too? I would have doubted it to be honest

Sfinn

Sharpie wrote: »

It was discussed here before so this thread might be of interest...http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055208777

Confused.

Can they come on my land without permission even if they own the sporting rights.

And finally does this mean i can only shoot vermin on my land and that i need permission from them to shoot everything else.

foxhunter

Sfinn wrote: »

lets put this way, over the weekend a party of 2 came onto my land and quoted the Wildlife act. when i challenged them . They stated the they did not need permission from me to shoot on my land as they owned the shooting rights.

A syndicate has recently bought an old house with sporting rights locally. they stated that i could shoot vermin, but only they could only shoot the game (pheasents, snipe, woodcock, duck etc)

I'm trying to get in touch with my solicitor at the moment for clarification? i just thought someone might have the answer.

There is a case going on at the moment down here .
The farmer owns the land like you but some sindicate owns the sporting rights .I believe this is in the high court at the moment it might be worth getting your solicitor to check it out.

foxhunter

Sfinn wrote: »

Confused.

Can they come on my land without permission even if they own the sporting rights.

And finally does this mean i can only shoot vermin on my land and that i need permission from them to shoot everything else.

If this was the case i would be leaving the vermin to do their work resulting in no game to shoot.

Sparks

Sfinn wrote: »

Can they come on my land without permission even if they own the sporting rights.

That's about the easiest part to answer: No. Sporting rights do not waive the act of trespass. And trespass while carrying a loaded firearm is something that no court would look on with favour. Whomever those two gentlemen were, I'd say they were sorely in need of better judgement and better legal advice with respect to the law.

And finally does this mean i can only shoot vermin on my land and that i need permission from them to shoot everything else.

That one is messier. I couldn't say for certain, but if you don't own the sporting rights to your land, it's possible. I'd recommend you check with a solicitor if you're worried about it at all.

Sharpie

I don't know much about it but what I do know means that it can get messy. Best bet is go to the solicitor and see what they have to say. It gets expensive though.

Again with another search of the statute book here are thing around sporting rights. A bit of reading but might be worthwhile.

This bit is interesting which talks about extinguishing rights if they are not exercised. Burden of proof seems to be upon the person trying to exercise rights. I personally wouldn't like to be the one trying to prove when generations of land owners would be able to speak to having no recollection of that ever happening.

Again best seek legal opinion, but no harm in a little self research either.

newby.204

maybe you dont own the sporting rights and cant shoot game on your own land, however its still your land and would you not be perfectly in your right to tell them to leave your property?? they may have the right s to shoot game on your land but you would have to let them onto your land to do so!! me thinks

just my tupence!!

BryanL

whatever about the legal rights or wrongs, i would say these guys have handled the situation very badly!
getting a land owners back up is never the way to start out!
I can't imagine they'll find much game there in the future:rolleyes:

fish slapped

"get the land owners back up" , Bl**dy hell the thought of it is making my blood boil let alone his. Again this could only happen in this wee country of ours. If they are denied access to the land the sporting rights aren't worth the paper there written on and I'd keep it that way!

BryanL

fish slapped wrote: »

"get the land owners back up" , Bl**dy hell the thought of it is making my blood boil let alone his. Again this could only happen in this wee country of ours. If they are denied access to the land the sporting rights aren't worth the paper there written on and I'd keep it that way!

I think your very wrong there, in the Scandinavian countries you can hunt shoot fish and camp on any land not under crops or fenced off as private gardens!
in britain shooting rights are all powerfull, look at how shooting estates call the shots for everyone
B

Grizzly 45

Simple way of finding out who has sporting rights.Go to the land registery in Waterford.They are online as well www.landregistery.ie But you have to subscribe to the service.Give them your foilo number and request the documents pertaining to the land.No folio number?Then up to Dublin with your old land comission[?] registration number to Setanta Hse[?] .
The land registery documents will give you the ownership,previous owners,charges on the property,and most of all in our case the sporting rights! BTW these ARE public documents,and anyone may access them!
Now,in alot of those documents,the sporting rights are last mentioned around the turn of the century,and belonged to Col Buckshot Bore[with apologies to any of that name reading here:D],address the large mansion,Anytown,Co Scchiill,Ireland,or Eire,or his Maj dominion of Ireland.:rolleyes:
Over the years Col Bores estate was broken up and sold off to the locals.Unless the sporting rights are mentioned and that Col Bore retained the sporting rights over that said piece of land,and passed it on to his DIRECT DECENDANTS,by way of will and legality .Example the dispute with a family who had the rights to the salmon fishing on the Suir,near Waterford for generations,and the local fishermen disputing that they had a right to charge for the use of the river a couple of years ago in Water ford.
It is a question wether anyone who bought the land is not entitled to the sporting rights to it.
So in FS [?]case.I would say to that lot unless they have written proof that the previous owners,since the last mention of sporting rights in the land deed have reserved the sporting rights from the time the land was transferred to this day and sold it exclusively with the land.They are not entitled to enter or claim the sporting rights to the land.

As always,consult a legal person on this advice,as this is a barrack room lawyer reading on this.Mileage and results may vary.:)

Sikamick

Can one ask how long have you owned the Land?.

Can you give a rough location?.

Sikamick

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

That's about the easiest part to answer: No. Sporting rights do not waive the act of trespass. And trespass while carrying a loaded firearm is something that no court would look on with favour. Whomever those two gentlemen were, I'd say they were sorely in need of better judgement and better legal advice with respect to the law.

Well that clears it up anyway

Whoever they are they are very silly gentlemen. They should have cleared it with the landowner even if it was just out of good old fashioned courtesy.

marshyc

i thought if you owned the land you can shoot what you like who owns a wild bird / animal

Mellor

marshyc wrote: »

i thought if you owned the land you can shoot what you like who owns a wild bird / animal

You need the shooting rights, or premission of the person with the shooting rights to shoot game on any land.
Normally you can, as the shooting rights are a part of ownership. But they do not have to be, when it is separated, the person who holds the shooting rights has the power so to speak.


But they still need permission.


Sfinn, while they were wrong about not needing permission. I don't think they were on the issue of you not being allowed to shoot game. Even though it is your land.
A possible solution might be to allow them permission in return for them allowing you to shoot game.
The alternitive is to not let them on the land, which they can challange. You can't shoot game, and its gets messy and legal.

marshyc

Thanks for clearing that up for me

John Griffin

I'm afraid they are most likely right and it will cost you a lot of money to prove their rights have been extinguished. They have the shooting rights so they can enter the land to exercise that right. You may only kill unprotected animals or animal/birds covered under the derogations if they are causing damage. If the game is causing damage a section 42 licence would sort that. Check with land registry to see if they are telling the truth. They are really not doing themselves any favors with that approach though:rolleyes:

J.R.

Never heard of such arrogance from shooters approaching a landowner on his land in all my life!

I wonder could you put up a few 'BEWARE OF THE BULL' signs around the boundaries until you get it sorted!

Sfinn

Thanks Lads, for all the comments. its with the solicitor now for her opinion.

A suggestion from the local farmers here has been to send a solicitors letter stating that they cannot trespass without permission and that they need to consult all the farmers to before exercising their right.

We can control access to what fenced but one main issue here is that about 4000 acres commanage between 102 farmers not divided is open. Complicated!!!

Sparks

I'd hold off on posting who you think the syndicate is made up from before you know Sfinn, like you say it's hearsay, and it's always a bad idea to spread that about before you have the facts to hand.

Sparks

John Griffin wrote: »

I'm afraid they are most likely right and it will cost you a lot of money to prove their rights have been extinguished. They have the shooting rights so they can enter the land to exercise that right.

I really find that hard to believe John, if it were true, these lads could wander through his kitchen with impunity. As I understood it, you had to have the permission of the landowner to enter his/her land (save for cases like the fire brigade or such).

Vegeta

John and Sparks give conflicting advice so now I am confused again

Either way Sfinn, the onus of proof is on them

(7) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall not be necessary for the prosecutor to prove that a defendant was on the land without lawful authority and, in case a defendant claims that he was on the land with lawful authority, the onus of proving such authority shall be on the defendant.

In my eyes (i'm not a solicitor or judge though) the only thing that section 44 of the wildlife act calrifies is who can legally hunt/shoot over the land. It doesn't specifically say that shooting rights allow you acces to the land

On a side issue does anyone know what section of the act specifically points out that shooting rights empower the holder as the only person(s) allowed to shoot game on the land?

Does anyone know what act covers tresspass? Criminal Justice?? That may well clear this up rather quickly

Sfinn

Sparks comment accepted.

Question

Where does it define in legal terms what sporting rights are and what privileges are associated with them? Surely there must be a legal definition somewhere.

there's nothing in the wildlife acts so it must be in the land acts?

Sparks

My guess is that the section of the act that they were on about was section 44 of the Wildlife Act which does say

Any person who not being the owner or occupier of land ... [and who enters it]...
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.

However, the Land Act of '65 points out that if the shooting rights of a block of land have not been used in any twelve year period after the passing of the act, they were extinguished and devolved to the owner/occupier of the land.

So basicly, unless the shooting rights were explicity sold to the local gun club, they're Sfinn's. And if they hadn't been exercised in the last 12 years, all Sfinn has to do is go talk to the land registry and ask that the rights be officially returned to him. At which point no-one has any form of claim on the land bar him.

On top of that, if the sporting rights are held seperately, there ought to be a clear indication of an easement to that effect on the title deed of the property.

Sparks

Trespass itself though, well, it's not in any one place. A lot of it is tort law which is usually heinously complicated and scattered. There are specific kinds of trespass mentioned in recent acts, the Housing Act of 2002 made it a criminal offence to enter or occupy land, but that doesn't seem to apply here. The 2006 Criminal Justice Act covers trespassing into a building or curtilage (that's why I thought you couldn't have sporting rights overriding trespass), but if they're stomping about on land that's not curtilage - I'm not sure. Have to do a search for a case.

meathstevie

What's curtilage Sparks ? Would I be right thinking it's land immedeatly surrounding a dwelling and recogniseable as such like for example a garden belonging house and garden with a hedge and fence around it separating it from surrounding fields ?

Sparks

Yeah ms - it's basicly your front garden. Doesn't have a roof, but it does have walls (of a sort) and it's regarded as part of the house more than part of the land.

cavan shooter

Talk about a shower of :mad: I have noticed recently when trying to get permission from Farmers to shoot land for the gun club (re signing)they are becoming obsessed with the idea of loosing their rights. If some shower of pluckers is acting like this I can see why.:(

From my limited knowledge this is similiar to mineral rights, yes the state owns the mineral rights and any exploration company can obtain a license to look for a viable deposit, but to get at the explore for the minerals they need the co-operation of the land owner.

Is your farm part of an old estate??

Sfinn

Everyones bit of green grass was at some stage belonging to some estate.

Don't get me started it was enough watching the famine on RTE last night. They watch our forefathers and their families starved to death and they stood by and watched.

This is 2008, not 1920 or 1865, or 1848, or 1798, and unfortunately we have to live with the various land acts and CDB and the land commission who left our sporting right to the various Col, lord etc etc. Remember we also have our present day versions. Sorry about that had to let of some steam.

The solicitor says the jury is still out, but reckons they cannot trespass with permission on land that is fenced. One option she says it to turn the commonage into a nature reserve. I don't want to do that either. The legal definition of shooting rights i have asked her to define. And the reclaiming for the sporting rights i'm to late to pursue as the new owners have been active in enjoying their right as she put it.

Sparks

Sfinn wrote: »

Everyones bit of green grass was at some stage belonging to some estate.

Yes, but - under the Land Act, if the sporting rights weren't exercised for any 12 year period after 1965, then the sporting rights devolve to the owner of the land.
Basicly, if they have sporting rights on your land, you should know about it - either it should have been mentioned when you bought the land and should be written as an easement on your title deed; or they should have negotiated them with you after you bought the land. It's not really possible to get the sporting rights to a patch of land out from under the current owner without their knowing of it.

And the reclaiming for the sporting rights i'm to late to pursue as the new owners have been active in enjoying their right as she put it.

I'd say that if they'd been inactive for the twelve years and the time they walked up to you and demanded access was the first time they exercised them, then you can have the rights returned to you. The relevant section of the Act is fairly clear here:

18.—Where—
( a ) lands have been registered under the Registration of Title Acts, 1891 and 1942, or the Registration of Title Act, 1964 ,
( b ) on such registration the sporting rights other than fishing rights on or over such lands were reserved to a person other than the registered owner, and
( c ) the said rights so reserved have not been exercised in the period of twelve years ending on the passing of this Act or in any period of twelve years ending on a date subsequent to the passing of this Act,

the said rights so reserved shall, and are hereby declared to, cease to exist on the expiry of such period and, upon application being made by any person interested the Registrar of Titles shall, if satisfactory evidence of the exercise of the said rights in such period is not forthcoming, cause the entry of the said rights to be cancelled in the appropriate register.

In other words, say this crowd didn't exercise the rights between '65 and '77 : then you can apply to have the rights extinguished even if they used them in '78. And frankly, if they're behaving like you describe, that's precisely what I'd do myself and I doubt any real shooter would think ill of you for doing so. Plonkers stomping about demanding access to people's land just gives all hunters a bad name.

Sfinn

The land has been in the family since Cromwell sent us here. To hell or to Connaught. I inherited the farm a few years ago from my father. So the shooting rights would have been the last thing on his mind as the previous owners of the old lodge were not into shooting but more into the fishing. A fishery was connected with the house. (Its was left with about 20 acres of farm land after the land commission) and the various locals would have had free rein. The local angling club in the 70s managed to acquire access rights and paid and annual fee on a lease. The new boys seem to respect this arrangement at the moment.

However, the old pair there died and the family sold up, so that how the syndicate got it.

I will look further in the shooting rights, however the solicitor says it a minefield and a long drawn out process. She reckons i might be better to come to some sort or an arrangement if possible and the least costly.

Sparks

Sfinn wrote: »

The local angling club in the 70s managed to acquire access rights and paid and annual fee on a lease. The new boys seem to respect this arrangement at the moment.
However, the old pair there died and the family sold up, so that how the syndicate got it.

Those are not sporting rights; they are fishing rights which are treated wholly seperately in Irish law.
If your title deed does not have an easement on it specifically for "sporting rights", then they don't have a leg to stand on.

She reckons i might be better to come to some sort or an arrangement if possible and the least costly.

Possibly - but possibly not as well. Check the land registry as indicated above in Grizzly's post. Establish who has the sporting rights, and when they were last exercised before you met the two chaps you first mentioned. After that, the expense is all theirs (as in, it's their case to make, or else they have to lease the rights off of you).

Double Barrel

Sparks wrote: »

I really find that hard to believe John, if it were true, these lads could wander through his kitchen with impunity. As I understood it, you had to have the permission of the landowner to enter his/her land (save for cases like the fire brigade or such).

Sparks does that not give the landowner "standing" or locus standi, in a trespass case.
The trespasser has to prove he/she has standing.

Sparks

The onus is always on the defendant in a trespass case DB - were you thinking of something else?

MRJ

sure if they havent permission to enter the said land then the sporting rights can not be exercised and dont mean anything?

Double Barrel

Exactly Sparks.
My point being, Sfin's immediate response should have being to use his mobile and ring the Gards and press charges. The rest has to be sorted out by the Court process. There is a whole lot of initial bluff by the offender in this type of encounter. Never argue with a trespasser, especially, with a loaded weapon.

Sparks wrote: »

That's about the easiest part to answer: No. Sporting rights do not waive the act of trespass. And trespass while carrying a loaded firearm is something that no court would look on with favour. Whomever those two gentlemen were, I'd say they were sorely in need of better judgement and better legal advice with respect to the law.


That one is messier. I couldn't say for certain, but if you don't own the sporting rights to your land, it's possible. I'd recommend you check with a solicitor if you're worried about it at all.

meathstevie

Sure let them have their sporting rights. I'm quite convinced that some noisy and disruptive farming work needs doing urgently whenever some snotty caracter comes in the line of sight. Of course the collies need a bit of training as well and I'm quite sure there's no better place to do that as about 50 yards in front of the gentry...:D Just trying to make the point that their sporting rights are very much an empty shell unless the circumstances are there for a bit of hunting and with that sort of attitude I'd be making sure the circumstances are as bad as possible. Every fence electrified, a chain and padlock on every gate and no handy spot to park the D4 tractor.

Sparks and Grizzly and other people already referred to it and I was talking to a farmer friend of mine a couple of minits ago about it : if there's nothing mentioned on the deeds of your land in relation to sporting rights or the land is clearly registered as being freehold property they can go and sod off.


All messing aside now, that sort of plunker makes me sick to the teeth. Personally I've never been refused shooting by any landowner I've approached unless they have a very good reason to refuse like for example the fact that they have a stud farm. Even then that particular man pointed me out a few fields he owned he tought were far enough away from his horses for me to work away.

If some caracter comes around claiming to exercise rights he acquired from a relic of a dismal past and he has no cast in stone evidence of such a Dunlop up his posterior would be the only thing he's getting if the land was mine.

On a different note, Cavan Shooter, just make sure you put the wording in the permission letter in such a way that the farmer is granting the club permission to hunt on the land and that such can be withdrawn at any time by giving notice to the club secretary in writing.
Make it show black on white that the farmer as landowner grants the club a favour he can freely withdraw at any time by giving notice to the club. An issue a couple of farmers I've been talking to have raised is exclusivity. Again, no my good man : you the farmer own the land and whatever comes with it. You're just giving a bunch of lads permission to hunt it. If you give anyone else permission that's up to you. End of story.

Screaming Eagle

Been looking at this forum for a while but my God you learn something new everyday. Very informative stuff. Thanks guys.

Sfinn

Hi Lads

If you fancy a bit of history check this out

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Game_Laws

cavan shooter

Sfinn wrote: »

Hi Lads

If you fancy a bit of history check this out

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Game_Laws

Very interesting, archaic, but interesting. Stirr it up a bit give permission to some local lads or the local gun club to shoot and plaster the fields with signs:D:D

p28559

am sure the local branch of the nargc could give you an indication. Des Crofton seems to be very knowledgeable. I have always laboured under the understanding that the land owners word was final. If he says you can you can. If he says you cant you cant. Shooting rights from the 19th centuary as they would have to be cant take precident over the landowners clearly expressed opionion. Particularly if you dont know these guys. Any one in long term possesion of land would know those in possession of long term rights to shoot. Land Registry will have it on the deeds if shooting rights exist.

if i was you I would be letting them pass by the next time and then ringing the cops. dont we have to specify where we shoot in general terms when reapplying each year.

its poor behaviour on the part of those two.