Hunting rights?

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.