Duck shooting on River

Dusty87

Im want to get some duck shooting done (when suspension lifted) before the season is out. And i have a question. This was brought up in the pub and i need some clarity.
I was on about going for a shot walking along a local river. But said id have to get a few more permissions as i wouldn have a long walk.
The friend said that 2metres from the bank is state owned and i wouldnt need pemission. When i challenged him he said, "how do you think people can walk the "westmeath way" without permission?" and "thats why you always see the hiking signs". I left it at that as he thinks hes a legal expert and no talking to him.
Can some one confirm or deny this please?
Thanks

leshogan

He is right, river banks are state owned

Dusty87

leshogan wrote: »

He is right, river banks are state owned

If thats the case, i could get access to the river from my permissions and walk as far as i want, with the gun and dog, without other landowners permission. Dosnt seem right to me. Surely theres something stopping people doing that as you'd have everyone doing it then??

kakashka

leshogan wrote: »

He is right, river banks are state owned

My river bank is not state owned,in fact i also own the river bed, the issue is more about the sporting rights over the river IMO

jwshooter

i would not go marching down a river bank with a firearm if i did not have permission.

Dusty87

jwshooter wrote: »

i would not go marching down a river bank with a firearm if i did not have permission.

Nor would i, hence the questions. I knew it wasnt as simple as that.

kakashka wrote: »

My river bank is not state owned,in fact i also own the river bed, the issue is more about the sporting rights over the river IMO

Thought as much. What do you mean by sporting rights exactly?

It wasn't me!

Dusty87 wrote: »

Thought as much. What do you mean by sporting rights exactly?

Ownership of the land and the sporting rights, the entitlement to hunt, shoot and fish and to allow others to do so, are often separate things. There are cases where the owner of the land does not have the sporting rights, which are often retained by older aristocratic families. In these cases, the owners of the sporting rights are entitled to access and to use the land, regardless of whether the landowner agrees.

Dusty87

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Ownership of the land and the sporting rights, the entitlement to hunt, shoot and fish and to allow others to do so, are often separate things. There are cases where the owner of the land does not have the sporting rights, which are often retained by older aristocratic families. In these cases, the owners of the sporting rights are entitled to access and to use the land, regardless of whether the landowner agrees.

Thanks, can never understand that fully. Sounds like something from british rule:P

locum-motion

Dusty87 wrote: »

Thanks, can never understand that fully. Sounds like something from british rule:P

This thread could quite easily descend into a Monty Python sketch...
"Yes, but, apart from the roads, the schools and the sewerage system, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

jwshooter

locum-motion wrote: »

This thread could quite easily descend into a Monty Python sketch...
"Yes, but, apart from the roads, the schools and the sewerage system, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

fallow ,rabbits.

lucy333springer

Dusty,
I think it's not so much state owned, but for fishing control agencies,
ie. bailiffs, and land owner's next to river's have to keep hedgeing
and the like's clear, for full access to river for these guy's,
I would'nt wander off my written permission with gun's,

333

kakashka

locum-motion wrote: »

This thread could quite easily descend into a Monty Python sketch...
"Yes, but, apart from the roads, the schools and the sewerage system, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

I hope we got a warranty!!