Jump to content

Woodland sporting rights


southeastpete
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

i just found out that apparently league against cruel sports, and probably others, are buying woodland, then seeking straight on, but retaining the sporting rights, to eventually prevent shooting over as much land as they can.

The only way to combat it that I can think of, is for no one to buy woodland without the sporting rights (which I doubt many in here would anyway)

But also, if selling land or woodland, to retain sporting rights yourself but place some sort of covenant that any future owner may shoot if they wish. Which would prevent the sporting rights falling into the hands of antis...

Edited by southeastpete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If true it’s clever and probably not a lot can be done about it. The majority of people selling won’t be interested in who is buying it and for what reasons. I would imagine it will cut down in the numbers of buyers willing to buy without sporting rights but it’s not an area I know anything about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And you really think land owners will refuse to sell on that basis?

Eh?

nothing to do with refusing to sell. 

Refusing to buy without sporting rights, or selling, but retaining sporting rights with a covenant that anyone who owns it can shoot.

Its just about keeping the sporting rights out of the hands of antis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the tactic you've described might "work" as such, I wonder if it would ever be possible for them to roll it out nationwide and have any sort of detectable impact on shooting overall?  The tactic relies on woodland owners wanting to sell in the first place and I can't imagine there's huge amounts of woodland changing hands all the time.  It also relies on them having a rather large bank balance, or being able to secure a whacking great mortgage or loan!

Do you have any more details, such as an example of where this has taken place?  Maybe this was just one targeted assault towards a specific victim or location?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woodlands.co.uk have all sorts of shady covenants you agree to when buying land from them. We looked at some a few years ago but it looked, to my un-trained eye, like they'd be able to do almost what they wanted with our land, regardless of not owning it, and we'd not be able to do most things we'd want to. No shooting, camping or fun of any kind. They held the sporting rights, plus the right to claim for any tree felling, land grants, furlough (I read somewhere that that was the reason the guy set the company up, he knew the EU payments were coming), minerals found etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Demonic69 said:

Woodlands.co.uk have all sorts of shady covenants you agree to when buying land from them. We looked at some a few years ago but it looked, to my un-trained eye, like they'd be able to do almost what they wanted with our land, regardless of not owning it, and we'd not be able to do most things we'd want to. No shooting, camping or fun of any kind. They held the sporting rights, plus the right to claim for any tree felling, land grants, furlough (I read somewhere that that was the reason the guy set the company up, he knew the EU payments were coming), minerals found etc.

That's partly true  on some of the pieces of shared woodland .  Most of the caveats are just common sense and common courtesy really , it's to stop someone from buying the piece of woodland next door , and turning it into a motocross track , or clay ground , or holding raves etc . Some blocks of woodland really aren't great though , I looked at a couple that had the sporting and mineral rights held by tarmac , it's unlikely that they would ever be able to remove woodland to quarry gravel etc , but if they did ever get permission,  you couldn't do a thing about it  .

I bought a stand alone woodland,  I own the mineral rights and sporting rights , and no caveats.

Edited by mel b3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Although the tactic you've described might "work" as such, I wonder if it would ever be possible for them to roll it out nationwide and have any sort of detectable impact on shooting overall?  The tactic relies on woodland owners wanting to sell in the first place and I can't imagine there's huge amounts of woodland changing hands all the time.  It also relies on them having a rather large bank balance, or being able to secure a whacking great mortgage or loan!

Do you have any more details, such as an example of where this has taken place?  Maybe this was just one targeted assault towards a specific victim or location?

I’m afraid I don’t have any details. 

Just thought I’d share on here in case any members are going to sell woodland one day. To protect future shooting they could hold sporting rights but place a covenant to allow all future owners to enjoy them. That way no one can ever stop people shooting in then.

3 hours ago, mel b3 said:

That's partly true  on some of the pieces of shared woodland .  Most of the caveats are just common sense and common courtesy really , it's to stop someone from buying the piece of woodland next door , and turning it into a motocross track , or clay ground , or holding raves etc . Some blocks of woodland really aren't great though , I looked at a couple that had the sporting and mineral rights held by tarmac , it's unlikely that they would ever be able to remove woodland to quarry gravel etc , but if they did ever get permission,  you couldn't do a thing about it  .

I bought a stand alone woodland,  I own the mineral rights and sporting rights , and no caveats.

Yes, woodlands and other similar companies are a terrible shame. They buy nice big woodlands, split them into 1-4 acre blocks and sell them on. Leading to lots of differing management plans all in one woodland, 12 times the amount of people coming and going etc etc. But they make a silly amount of profit so who cares right....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purchased a large acreage of woodland down in Herefordshire that I had the lease on for bird and deer shooting.  I attempted to make contact but had no reponse and before my lease ran out I found signs that deer had been shot in the woodland and a 4x4/atv used to transport the carcases out. Eventually the representative from the Woodland Trust did make contact and the subject raised. His attitude was, we have possession and can do what we want.  I was not impressed. The woodland then became a free for all and wrecked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, southeastpete said:

Eh?

nothing to do with refusing to sell. 

Refusing to buy without sporting rights, or selling, but retaining sporting rights with a covenant that anyone who owns it can shoot.

Its just about keeping the sporting rights out of the hands of antis. 

Don't bank on it. Just before the hunting ban the National Trust had the previous owner's wish that on the land that he donated to them hunting would be allowed to continue overturned - unbelievably aided and abetted by his son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Don't bank on it. Just before the hunting ban the National Trust had the previous owner's wish that on the land that he donated to them hunting would be allowed to continue overturned - unbelievably aided and abetted by his son.

What’s the point in any of these covenants etc then? Surely that would mean buying from woodlands or someone, you could overturn all their covenants?

 

another thought I had, would shooting thins as pests come under ‘sporting’ rights? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, southeastpete said:

I’m afraid I don’t have any details. 

Just thought I’d share on here in case any members are going to sell woodland one day. To protect future shooting they could hold sporting rights but place a covenant to allow all future owners to enjoy them. That way no one can ever stop people shooting in then.

Yes, woodlands and other similar companies are a terrible shame. They buy nice big woodlands, split them into 1-4 acre blocks and sell them on. Leading to lots of differing management plans all in one woodland, 12 times the amount of people coming and going etc etc. But they make a silly amount of profit so who cares right....

OK from who/where did you hear of this happening?  I'm interested to do a bit of digging on it that's all, if I can find out any more I will ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LACS had quite a bit of land some years ago, which they claimed was a sanctuary for deer, but they had no idea about their welfare and were reported by their own deer manager. 
I still have pictures of diseased and rotting deer carcasses dumped in a pit, due to their lack of knowing how to care for them. 
Im not too worried about this; they are going to have to buy a LOT of land to stop shooting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, old'un said:

The LACS do mention that they own land and sporting rights around Exmoor and the Quantock Hills, the Baronsdown sanctuary on Exmoor being one such place..https://www.league.org.uk/sanctuaries

 

Seems LACS found out the hard way that bambi needs culling, or you get problems like this..

 

 

Interesting video, thanks for sharing that.  I do fear though, that people who aren't shooting/hunting-oriented would immediately perceive that film as pure propaganda and dismiss it in the same way we perceive the antis' social media output and Packham et al's tirade of lies.  On the plus side, at leats there has been a decent effort made to cover this subject from the point of view of the people involved in deer management so all credit to them.

12 hours ago, southeastpete said:

I think it was on the small woodland owners fb group

OK I'll have a look ,thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Interesting video, thanks for sharing that.  I do fear though, that people who aren't shooting/hunting-oriented would immediately perceive that film as pure propaganda and dismiss it in the same way we perceive the antis' social media output and Packham et al's tirade of lies.  On the plus side, at leats there has been a decent effort made to cover this subject from the point of view of the people involved in deer management so all credit to them.

OK I'll have a look ,thanks.

I asked for more info on there and got nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 14/11/2020 at 22:13, ShootingEgg said:

Barronsdown is a good example of how they actually know very little about animal management, jmyet protest about it being done. Wifh the amount of crowd funding they get id not be surprised if they do buy up sporting rights. 

They have a huge amount of land, where their head office is in Surrey, bought and paid for by a former Beatle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...