orienteering - would you give permission?

treccie

Hi folks,

I'm coming at this from two angles, one as an event organiser and one as a land owner. I compete in trec (orienteering on horse back) and have organised many events with different trec groups around ireland, including some which have crossed my own land.

The route organisers for each event design a route which challenges riders and makes the best use of any off road available to them. Riders are heavily penalised if they deviate from the routes set and the insurance is provided by the organising body.

When the event was held at my farm it was july - a wet july and there was some young stock on the land as well, the organisers asked which areas they could use that would not inconvenience us in any way. My dad was in hospital having a hip replacement that week so it was fairly important to not be inconvenienced. The only hassle was one fence was cut to give access to a second block of land and laneways (but the stewards repaired this 30 minutes after the final competitor. The areas they used were crossing two fields and the rest was using laneways, woodland and tractor passes.

The appreciation from the competitors surprised me, they report it is notoriously difficult to find areas that routes can be organised with a lot of off road included as farmers can be unsure/wary of being involved (which is of course their right).

What I'd love to ask is if you were approached in your area would you be willing to look into letting such a competition cross you land? If yes, what considerations or questions would you have? If no, why not? I've volunteered to put together an information pack for farmers/landowners so your feedback would be really helpful.

(ETA - we are not talking about hunting here, we are talking about riders travelling in pairs or as individuals at a set speed over a preset route, e.g. where travelling on the headland of a field riders may be give a compulsory walk zone to prevent any damage to land).

ZETOR_IS_BETTER

Insurance worries would stop me giving permission. I would worry even though the organiser may be insured to the tilt that if something unfortunate happened the land owner could also be held responsible.

I cant remeber the case but I can remember that a organisation and a land owner were both sued where some one suffered injury.

Grecco

The Woodcutter and the Trees
A woodcutter went into the forest and begged the trees the favor of a handle for his axe. The principal trees at once agreed to so modest a request, and unhesitatingly gave him a young ash sapling, out of which he fashioned the handle he desired. No sooner had he done so than he set to work to fell the noblest trees in the wood. When they saw the use to which he was putting their gift, they cried, “Alas! alas! We are undone, but we are ourselves to blame. The little we gave has cost us all: had we not sacrificed the rights of the ash, we might ourselves have stood for ages.”

epfff

ZETOR_IS_BETTER wrote: »

Insurance worries would stop me giving permission. I would worry even though the organiser may be insured to the tilt that if something unfortunate happened the land owner could also be held responsible.

I cant remeber the case but I can remember that a organisation and a land owner were both sued where some one suffered injury.

Insurance big 1 for me
repair of damage
users being respectfull

mikemac1

Well considering in Ireland you can fall off a cliff and sue the landowners :rolleyes:

The Irish Supreme Court has clarified the liability of land owners in what might well be a landmark case.

Geraldine Weir-Rogers in April 1997 fell off a Donegal cliff and demanded compensation from the land's owners. Her case rested on the argument that by failing to provide any danger warnings, the owner had acted with "reckless disregard". "Reckless disregard for recreational users or trespassers" is, apart from actually causing harm, the nearly only reason establishing a landowner's responsibility for any injury or loss.

The Occupier Liabilities Act (1995) establishes this and Justice Butler at the High Court ruled that the Franciscan Order (the owners) should pay nearly $ 100.000. The Franciscans, however, took up the legal gauntlet and brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Here Justice Geoghegan ruled that no "reckless disregard" could be established. Instead he insisted that common sense dictated the possibility of a nearby cliff if one stood on high ground overlooking and next to the sea - thus making additional signs unnecessary.

For the tourist this ruling means that his or her own common sense and alertness to possible (obvious) dangers are more important than any signs.

Should have went to Specsavers love

The compo claim was eventually defeated but only because the landowner fought and a farmer doesn't have the resources of the Franciscan Order.
And solicitors don't work for free!

You've a reasonable request OP, very fair.

But I'd decline you too, sorry

1chippy

Like the rest said insurance would be the main issue. telling the farmer that everything would be repaired afterwards is one thing but what do i do if its not. I dont really trust most sort of groups using the ground, the majority may be ok however i have found theres always one arse.

mf240

The organisers promise the sun moon and stars then when the riders go and do what ever they want you are told they are sorry.

They cut high tensile wire and their attempt to repair fences resemble something a child would do.

They tell you they have insurance but when it come down to it they will tell you they hadnt cover and will claim of farmers insurance.

If you dont have enough land of your own to exercise a horse use the roads or buy a hamster instead.

epfff

mf240 wrote: »

The organisers promise the sun moon and stars then when the riders go and do what ever they want you are told they are sorry.

They cut high tensile wire and their attempt to repair fences resemble something a child would do.

They tell you they have insurance but when it come down to it they will tell you they hadnt cover and will claim of farmers insurance.

If you dont have enough land of your own to exercise a horse use the roads or buy a hamster instead.

Your painting all with same brush
Too poor for horses myself but have to say local hunt here are fine
their was 1 rider few yts back that thought he was better than the country folk so hunt leader was told when comming again they would not be given permission if he was on it
never any probs with fences they employ 2 local guys to put rhinggs right

Manoffeeling

The less you have around the place the better.

pakalasa

There was a big stallion donkey, he stepped into the bull's field, but he never stepped out again...... 'Cause he didn't have permission!

Bizzum

pakalasa wrote: »

There was a big stallion donkey, he stepped into the bull's field, but he never stepped out again...... 'Cause he didn't have permission!

"If you think that I'm going to face my mother in heaven or hell without that field, you've got something else coming...........No collar, uniform or weapon will protect the man that stands in my way"

treccie

mf240 wrote: »

The organisers promise the sun moon and stars then when the riders go and do what ever they want you are told they are sorry.

They cut high tensile wire and their attempt to repair fences resemble something a child would do.

They tell you they have insurance but when it come down to it they will tell you they hadnt cover and will claim of farmers insurance.

If you dont have enough land of your own to exercise a horse use the roads or buy a hamster instead.

Sounds like you've been burnt in the past - possibly by a hunt?

As for the repair work, in our case I wanted my guy to do it so he was paid by the organisers.


"If you don't have enough land..." if you read the original post you'll see the query refers to orienteering competitions, not exercising horses which is a completely different endeavour.

Thank you for your reply however.

blue5000

I'd have to say no.

This is a whole legal mine field in which if a farmer loses a case he could lose everything. It's all very well saying you have insurance etc.etc. But if it comes to a court case the farmer is on his own.
Sorry if I'm not making my reasons clear but the whole access to the countryside is a can of worms, once it is opened the amount of hassle we as farmers will have with litter, dogs, gates being left open theft etc. will be unbelievable.

Much simpler to say no to everyone.