Hunting rights?

Larry60

If you own lands and if you look on your deeds it may, as in my case state that the hunting rights or sporting rights, are not your property, ie they traditionally belong to the former owner of the estate to which your lands once belonged? I believe that this is the same of all the lands in my district. The last owner of the hunting/sporting rights did I believe give the rights to the local gun club. The question is, can I or indeed any of the local land owners actually forbid a local gunclub member to shoot on their proptery?
By the way there is no issue, this is just a discuission. Any thoughts?

It wasn't me!

As far as I recall, the sporting rights include right of access, so no, you would not be legally entitled to prevent them coming in to act within their rights. Similarly, you're not even entitled to shoot your own land without the sporting rights.

Larry60

The thing is that landowners automatically believe that they own the hunting/sporting rights and land permissions for firearms licences are given by landfowners to those seeking firearms licences and Gardai who are processing the licences never question who actually owns the hunting/sporting licences. Another thing is that I believe that some gun clubs cover an area that their members just presume they have the hunting rights to.

mrbrianj

I think the hunting rights have to be actively exercised every number of years. Hence some notices being placed in papers from time to time.

There are threads here about land in cork that it still happens in(iirc)
It may revert to the landowner if not correctly exercised.

Either way an expensive high court case to prove

One shot on kill

What happens if an accident occurred. Who is liable then. Is it the land owner or is it the gunclub or the person that owns the sporting rights.

blackpearl

I thought we got rid of all that sporting rights bull when we became a republic.

aaakev

It wasn't me! wrote: »

As far as I recall, the sporting rights include right of access, so no, you would not be legally entitled to prevent them coming in to act within their rights. Similarly, you're not even entitled to shoot your own land without the sporting rights.

Therein lies the problem, if that is true it should be changed. A man who buys land should have the full rights to that land and not have a gunclub able to dictate who can or cant use it. Its an out datet practice that makes absolutely no sense at all

Jerrystevens

afaik to exercise the actual sporting rights ie actually' shoot hunt or fish' there needs to be consent given for access by the landowner

pedroeibar1

They are not ‘shooting’ rights, they are ‘sporting rights’ (the right to 'hawk, hunt, fish and fowl') and give the right to enter onto land to shoot what is found there including what is reared and released.

They are rights called profits à prendre - that is a right to do something on and take something from land (rather than take ownership of the actual land itself). They are legally necessary because wild animals cannot be owned whilst alive, only when dead, so the owner of the land has qualified ownership of them whilst they are alive on his land and absolute ownership of them should they die there, (which is the legal basis for prosecuting poachers).

Sporting rights are ‘property’ in their own right and can be sold separately to the land over which they apply. When the old estates here in Ireland were broken up and sold under the various Land Acts c.1900 some of the estates retained their sporting rights over the land sold, others transferred them with the land and some did both. Each farm of land needs to be examined to be sure.

So, sporting rights can be sold or leased to an individual by their owner who may not necessarily own the land. They do not need to be exercised to retain ownership; the owner of the land cannot allow/give/sell/lease the rights unless those rights are owned by him. Any person shooting/fishing/hawking without permission is liable to prosecution.

ace86

mrbrianj wrote: »

I think the hunting rights have to be actively exercised every number of years. Hence some notices being placed in papers from time to time.

There are threads here about land in cork that it still happens in(iirc)
It may revert to the landowner if not correctly exercised.

Either way an expensive high court case to prove

Yoiur right there if they excercise there rights once every 11 years i was told they are entitled to shoot the ground in question,but if they let it slide i persume the shooting rights revert to whoever owns the land.

Jerrystevens

it's amazing what you can find while drinking a cup of tea

http://www.libraryoflaw.com/Europe/Ireland/Real_Estate_/Easements_/Overview.html

pedroeibar1

ace86 wrote: »

Yoiur right there if they excercise there rights once every 11 years i was told they are entitled to shoot the ground in question,but if they let it slide i persume the shooting rights revert to whoever owns the land.

No.

ace86

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

No.

Enlighten me???

pedroeibar1

Jerrystevens wrote: »

it's amazing what you can find while drinking a cup of tea

http://www.libraryoflaw.com/Europe/Ireland/Real_Estate_/Easements_/Overview.html

So what is your point (other than you are enjoying a cup of tea)?

Jerrystevens

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

So what is your point (other than you are enjoying a cup of tea)?

simply that it is explained in the document i linked to

pedroeibar1

ace86 wrote: »

Enlighten me???

Sporting rights are real property, and ownership (usually) is separate to a piece of land to which they apply but they are legally attached to it. They are for e.g. like the car you own. You can drive it, you can rent it to somebody or you can sell it. Just because it is parked on the public road does not mean anyone can use it. Like the car, the owner of the sporting rights can use them, rent them out or sell them. The only way someone can acquire those rights is either by consent (sale/lease) or by prescription, which means (for shooting) that you have used them continuously, openly and with consent for at least 30 years prior to 2009. If the owner of the land contests that you will end up in court with a very large bill.


The article in the link above is out of date and does not take into consideration the huge impact of the recent Supreme Court decision on the Lissadell case. Anyway the article primarily deals with easements and is more appropriate to the law in relation to the right to run a cable TV line or water pipe through another’s property.


Sporting rights are not easy, if in doubt go to a solicitor.

Jerrystevens

it is maybe out of date ,the lisadell case was very recent and will set a precedent for rights of way and maybe will help with 'sporting rights'

ace86

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sporting rights are real property, and ownership (usually) is separate to a piece of land to which they apply but they are legally attached to it. They are for e.g. like the car you own. You can drive it, you can rent it to somebody or you can sell it. Just because it is parked on the public road does not mean anyone can use it. Like the car, the owner of the sporting rights can use them, rent them out or sell them. The only way someone can acquire those rights is either by consent (sale/lease) or by prescription, which means (for shooting) that you have used them continuously, openly and with consent for at least 30 years prior to 2009. If the owner of the land contests that you will end up in court with a very large bill.


The article in the link above is out of date and does not take into consideration the huge impact of the recent Supreme Court decision on the Lissadell case. Anyway the article primarily deals with easements and is more appropriate to the law in relation to the right to run a cable TV line or water pipe through another’s property.


Sporting rights are not easy, if in doubt go to a solicitor.

the reason i stated what i said earlier as i know of an case where a certain person had shooting/sporting rights to a considerable acerage of ground which was owned by numerous different people and one owner of the ground went to a solicitor and asked about it and he was told by the solicitor that if they exercise their rights once every 11 years they were entitled to shoot there and the rights were theres.I'm open to any correction or a legal explanation on what i said i'm only relayin what i was told.

Larry60

The Lissadell Case I believe refers to a new "county plan" by Sligo Co.Co. which made the assumption that as the roads and lanes around the house and adjacent lands, although they were the proptery of the owners of Lissadell House, had been left open to public use for as long as anyone could remember and were therefore public places. The owners as far as I know wanted only th close off this access at night for security purposes, and frankly as these roads only service the house and their proptery I agreed with the owners point of view. Anyway the owners won their case on appeal.
Getting back to my original topic, Our local gun club of which I am a member, although it does own the hunting rights some landowners still will "run" gun club members off their lands. As far as I know no member has actually challanged them on this point.
This leads me to another question, as Coilte have forestry plantations on the lands in question are they entitled to lease out the shooting on these lands as they do. Mabe this is also the case in other parts of the country and local hunters are being prosecuted for hunting/poaching by those who do not even own the rights themselves.

pedroeibar1

Jerrystevens wrote: »

it is maybe out of date ,the lisadell case was very recent and will set a precedent for rights of way and maybe will help with 'sporting rights'

The impact of the Lisadell case will have a huge impact on easements, hill walking, etc., but less so on sporting rights. What the Supreme Court has done in Lissadell is clarify the position on 'rights of way' and as a result has protected and reinforced the rights of the owners of land - every page of its 116 pages is a nail in the coffin for the case being put by those who claim unregistered 'rights', or claim to have a right to walk over land. Any proposed change will now require legislation and no government is (a) going to take on the vested interests or (b) dedicate the time and energy to a task that is minor when so much else needs to be done. It does not really affect sporting rights.

From a shooters perspective Lissadell is a great decision - say for example you/ your gun lub own or lease sporting rights and rear & release pheasant on the land; a problem with dogwalkers/loose dogs arises on the property and the dog owners claim to have a right of way. As a result of Lissadell you are in a hugely stronger position; they cannot persist in their claim to a right of way unless they also have the backing of the Attorney General. (Some hope!) If their claim is false you also have grounds to sue them for claiming to have a right of way.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've done a lot of research on sporting rights because I own land, I shoot, but I cannot shoot over my own land because I do not own the sporting rights.

riffmongous

Out of interest, in a hypothetical situation where if a gun club only owned the rights to part of your land,which was surrounded by other land, could you deny them access to the rest of your land to stop them from getting there and exercising their sport rights?

Jerrystevens

as i posted earlier afaik access has to be consensual for eg a group of shooters could not just tramp across a field full of horses or growing crops
and there is a time frame in which those rights have to exercised by either by use or statement of use in paper etc

pedroeibar1

Larry60 wrote: »

Getting back to my original topic, Our local gun club of which I am a member, although it does own the hunting rights some landowners still will "run" gun club members off their lands. As far as I know no member has actually challanged them on this point.

My take (not legal opinion) - Assuming that you are correct and your club does own the rights to shoot, no landowner has the legal right to prevent them from exercising those rights. Should it go to court any denier of those rights, to get a decent hearing (rather than be thrown out) would have to prove that he suffered a serious nuisance, his cattle/livelihood were being threatened by abuse by the holder of the rights, etc. It would be better to sort it out amicably, senior club guy talks to the farmer and says ‘Look, we have the legal right to come onto the land and shoot, we want to remain friends, all your neighbours are OK with us/our behaviour when shooting, where is your problem and how can we work together?’

I’ve heard stories of a half-assed case in N. Kerry years ago (have never had proof of it) where a judge ruled that the holder of the sporting rights was allowed on the land to shoot, but not his invitees/guests. It was not appealed but should have been.

Larry60 wrote: »

This leads me to another question, as Coilte have forestry plantations on the lands in question are they entitled to lease out the shooting on these lands as they do. Mabe this is also the case in other parts of the country and local hunters are being prosecuted for hunting/poaching by those who do not even own the rights themselves.

If Coillte have plantations on the land and your Club owns the sporting rights they cannot lease out the forestry, because they don’t own the rights. (Just as your next door neighbour does not have the right to allow somebody drive your car). If your club has the rights and Coillte are renting them out (or purporting to do so) they should be told to stop immediately. They also probably would be liable for damages for any loss your Club suffered.

As for prosecutions, nobody would be stupid enough to initiate proceedings against a person for poaching unless there was a very strong case. The first thing any prosecution and defence lawyer would look at is the right to initiate the action, and that would be based on and referenced to the sporting rights.

Do not confuse permission to shoot with the legal right to shoot.

pedroeibar1

Jerrystevens wrote: »

as i posted earlier afaik access has to be consensual for eg a group of shooters could not just tramp across a field full of horses or growing crops
and there is a time frame in which those rights have to exercised by either by use or statement of use in paper etc

Common sense has to prevail. If you damage crops/injure animals in exercising your rights you probably could/would be sued for damages. Why risk losing goodwill in the community? I sometimes shoot with a friend who farms in the Midlands and he will tell his neighbour that we will be shooting on X day and will probably have a go for woodcock in Y field, would he like to join us and will his horses be next door? The response inevitably is 'I'm too busy but shoot away and one of ye go on my side of the hedge in case anything comes out and have a go in Z field there were a few cock there yesterday' It is just good manners/common sense which sometimes are hard to find nowadays!

pedroeibar1

riffmongous wrote: »

Out of interest, in a hypothetical situation where if a gun club only owned the rights to part of your land,which was surrounded by other land, could you deny them access to the rest of your land to stop them from getting there and exercising their sport rights?

You could stop them from shooting over the land to which they had no rights, but to deny access to other land over which they had a right to shoot would depend on the wording in the deed granting them sporting rights. Most likely you could not, if it was drawn up properly by their lawyers.

Jerrystevens

that's different i thought we were discussing bullyboy tactics as practised by some of those who own sporting rights cough cough
anyway there is a legal position on sporting rights the 12 yr rule does apply if not exercised and the landowner can apply to the land registry to have them changed to favour the land owner
all this is in the 1965 land acts
it may be old but it has not been superseded according to a retired barrister we know

pedroeibar1

Jerrystevens wrote: »

that's different i thought we were discussing bullyboy tactics as practised by some of those who own sporting rights cough cough
anyway there is a legal position on sporting rights the 12 yr rule does apply if not exercised and the landowner can apply to the land registry to have them changed to favour the land owner
all this is in the 1965 land acts
it may be old but it has not been superseded according to a retired barrister we know

I have no idea what all that means.

Jerrystevens

i was referring to your 'common sense has to prevail comment '

there is an ongoing situation in some parts of the country where landowners do not own the sporting rights to their land (our farm is like this). most of the people (descendants of aristocracy or their agents)who now own said rights either don't know they do , don't care , or are not stupid/brazen enough to exercise these rights.
But some do ie my bully boy comments
When i was trying to work out the legal situation for ourselves i was told that the land acts of 1965 specifically dealt with this issue
i have it in book form but no scanner
it states
'where the sporting rights have not been exercised for a period of 12 years ending on 9/3/1965 or in any subsequent 12 year period section 18 provides that these rights shall cease to exist
further more it goes on to say that the landowner can apply for the cancellation of said sporting rights to the land registry

i will PM you alink to the relevant part

pedroeibar1

Jerrystevens wrote: »

i was referring to your 'common sense has to prevail comment '

there is an ongoing situation in some parts of the country where landowners do not own the sporting rights to their land (our farm is like this). most of the people (descendants of aristocracy or their agents)who now own said rights either don't know they do , don't care , or are not stupid/brazen enough to exercise these rights.
But some do ie my bully boy comments
When i was trying to work out the legal situation for ourselves i was told that the land acts of 1965 specifically dealt with this issue
i have it in book form but no scanner
it states
'where the sporting rights have not been exercised for a period of 12 years ending on 9/3/1965 or in any subsequent 12 year period section 18 provides that these rights shall cease to exist
further more it goes on to say that the landowner can apply for the cancellation of said sporting rights to the land registry

i will PM you alink to the relevant part

The law is clear. If I owned sporting rights to land I would use them and protect them. That is my right, whether I bought, leased or inherited them. Lots of people lease Coillte forestry for stalking, pay dearly for it an you dislike not being able to go in to shoot? :rolleyes:
A little learning is a dangerous thing, read a bit further and you will encounter words like 'uncontested'. Your barrister friend will earn a fat fee, win, lose or draw.
As part of what you are advocating is illegal and as that is against the charter of Boards I will not comment further.

Jerrystevens

i think you misunderstand my post
i am not advocating anything

there are parts of this island where landlords own the sporting rights and exercise them by posting in papers and prevent lads shooting on their own land

there are other parts where the landlords or their descendants don't care or are unaware and it's not an issue

where did i mention coillte or paying for stalking i'm lost

pedroeibar1

Jerrystevens wrote: »

....bullyboy tactics as practised by some of those who own sporting rights cough cough

I'm not stoopid.:rolleyes:

Jerrystevens

maybe not but you are interpreting things to suit your self
i was referring to the situation with XXXX castle and it's resident and the approach taken by him over a vast number of townlands

ace86

This leads me to another question, as Coilte have forestry plantations on the lands in question are they entitled to lease out the shooting on these lands as they do. Mabe this is also the case in other parts of the country and local hunters are being prosecuted for hunting/poaching by those who do not even own the rights themselves.[/QUOTE]

In terms of Coilte they own the sporting rights to the forestrys they own and they lease these to clubs/individuals or groups for a numbers of years in which they submit a tender for them for the time of the contract and an x amount fee is paid once a year or collectively I'm not sure. If you are caught by the lease holder or coilte shooting their land they are both legal enitled to sue you for tresspassing and poaching and any damage u caused while you where there. If u have shooting rights in ground around or near the forestry your entitled to shoot there and the lease holder of the forestry is not if he hasn't got relevant permisson from the the landowner.As alot of the guys said every landowner would want to check his deeds of his land to make sure he has the sporting rights and not someone else as there has been alot of problems and complications with this.

pedroeibar1

Jerrystevens wrote: »

maybe not but you are interpreting things to suit your self
i was referring to the situation with XXXXX castle and it's resident and the approach taken by him over a vast number of townlands

I answered direct questions, nobody can be expected to know the background to what you are on about. The above post is the first time you have mentioned 'a situation' and most if not all people here have no idea of what you are talking about because you have not outlined it. You appear to suggest that the owner of X owns shooting rights (I've XXed out the name) but will not allow others, including landowners, to exercise them. The legal position is clear - the owner is within his/her rights to do that. Whether he/she is morally right to do so or to fail to discuss some arrangement with landowners is a separate issue.

It is the same as Y gunclub that owns rights and has 'Game preserved' notices up and does not allow outsiders to shoot. If you have a bitch about it, go ask to buy out the sporting rights and put your money where your mouth is. Do that and you will find that you are just as keen to keep outsiders from shooting!

I'm going off for a weekend's shooting, so goodbye.

wexfordman2

Jesus Pedro, I have no idea where you are comming from either. I still don't see what jerry was saying that was breaking any rules or laws?

Seems to me you are jumping to conclusions that I certainly don't see, maybe you could elaborate a bit more for us?

Jerrystevens

unbunch your panties there horse :P

the owner of sporting rights is legally within his rights PROVIDED they have been exercised within the last 12 years if not then they cease to exist the landowner can then reclaim them so to speak by legal process with the land registry FACT

lets get this straight i have no issue with anyone buying renting or leasing sporting rights from the legal land owner

what i do object to is the assumption by some that they have a god given right to do what they want on others land,and in doing so ride rough shod over the legal owners wishes , that goes against all i believe in and should have been confined to the bin in 1916 along with all that ascendency hooha

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Sporting rights are not easy, if in doubt go to a solicitor.

That could be the summary of this entire topic, to be honest.

I mean, you've all seen the firearms act and how messed up a bit of law that is; and that's modern law, it only goes back to 1925. Sporting rights and property law? Feck's sakes lads, do you know how old that area of law is and how much crud has built up in it over time? Put it this way - the phrase "castle doctrine", which you'll hear in that body of law occasionally, is not metaphorical, it's talking about actual castles because that's how old that body of law is

Don't just read the act once and think you know enough about the law to keep you out of court. If you've got a problem with your gas boiler, you don't try to fix it yourself, you call an expert. Same deal with the law...

Sparks

Jerrystevens wrote: »

should have been confined to the bin in 1916

...when we were still part of the British empire and would remain so for another 21 years?

I mean, sure, there was the Irish Republic, but that wasn't declared until 1919, was never recognised, and officially and unofficially ceased to exist in 1922 anyway. It wasn't until the 1937 constitution that we officially ceased to be a part of the Commonwealth (though we did have legislative independence after 1931) and it wasn't until 1949 that the King was finally taken out of all aspects of the Irish state. So all that ascendency hooha wasn't confined to the bin for a good 33 years after 1916...

Vegeta

Jerrystevens wrote: »

the owner of sporting rights is legally within his rights PROVIDED they have been exercised within the last 12 years if not then they cease to exist the landowner can then reclaim them so to speak by legal process with the land registry FACT

You're not wrong Jerry but the landowner can only reclaim them if no-one contests it.