Intresting question - Owner vs Farmer

[PeterHenry]

It occured to me the other day, that most pigeon shooters potentially occupy a bit of a strange place in the respect of gaining permision.

Obviously, sporting rights are the preserve of whoever holds them - that's a matter of deeds and contracts. Likewise, the Ground Game Act 1880 gives tenant farmers the right to shoot rabbits themselves or allow others to.

Pigeons, however, are authorised (at this moment in time) by GL42 and are governed by the definitions of 'owner' and 'occupier' as per section 27(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

So, my question is - in the event of a disagreement betwen the Farmer and the Landowner - who wins? Can one throw the others pigeon shooters off, or can neither throw the others off? Does one trump the other?

Edited July 16, 2021 by PeterHenry

[old'un]

I would think as the owner of the land you could ban guns from your land no matter who farms it.

[JDog]

32 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

It occured to me the other day, that most pigeon shooters potentially occupy a bit of a strange place in the respect of gaining permision.

Obviously, sporting rights are the preserve of whoever holds them - that's a matter of deeds and contracts. Likewise, the Ground Game Act 1880 gives tenant farmers the right to shoot rabbits themselves or allow others to.

Pigeons, however, are authorised (at this moment in time) by GL42 and are governed by the definitions of 'owner' and 'occupier' as per section 27(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

So, my question is - in the event of a disagreement betwen the Farmer and the Landowner - who wins? Can one throw the others pigeon shooters off, or can neither throw the others off? Does one trump the other?

Why do you ask?

[PeterHenry]

 

27 minutes ago, old'un said:

I would think as the owner of the land you could ban guns from your land no matter who farms it.

Not with respect to rabbits, which is what got me thinking.

18 minutes ago, JDog said:

Why do you ask?

I'd just like to know tbh - my family owns land and it has a number of tennents on - in the past they have let people shoot on it for crop protection, etc - although we have always reserved the sporting rights. A few years ago after a cartridge worth of shot worked it's way throught the branches of the tree I was fishing under, not far above my head, it was then decided it was time to take a more controlled approch to who was shooting there.

No problems as of yet - but I'd just like to figure out what's what with the law and was looking to see if anyone had any pointers.

Edited July 16, 2021 by PeterHenry

[old'un]

3 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

 

Not with respect to rabbits, which is what got me thinking.

I'd just like to know tbh - my family owns land and it has a number of tennents on - in the past they have let people shoot on it for crop protection, etc - although we have always reserved the sporting rights. A few years ago after a cartridge worth of shot worked it's way throught the branches of the tree I was fishing under, not far above my head, it was then decided it was time to take a more controlled approch to who was shooting there.

No problems as of yet - but I'd just like to figure out what's what with the law and was looking to see if anyone had any pointers.

yes you can, Its yours or the tenants responsibility to control rabbits but as the land owner you can ban guns from your land.

[PeterHenry]

24 minutes ago, old'un said:

yes you can, Its yours or the tenants responsibility to control rabbits but as the land owner you can ban guns from your land.

Sorry, and I take no pleasure in pointing it out - but your wrong.

[F1(1)The occupier shall kill and take ground game only by himself or by persons duly authorised by him in writing:

(a)The occupier himself and one other person authorised in writing by such occupier shall be the only persons entitled under this Act to kill ground game with firearms;

[JDog]

2 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Sorry, and I take no pleasure in pointing it out - but your wrong.

[F1(1)The occupier shall kill and take ground game only by himself or by persons duly authorised by him in writing:

(a)The occupier himself and one other person authorised in writing by such occupier shall be the only persons entitled under this Act to kill ground game with firearms;

Your original post was rhetorical as I suspected.

[PeterHenry]

14 minutes ago, JDog said:

Your original post was rhetorical as I suspected.

It's not- it's a question asked in all seriousness.

Pigeons aren't covered by the Ground Game Act so I dont see how my last post could have persuaded you to think that - unless I've (quite possibly) missed something?

Edited July 16, 2021 by PeterHenry

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Once again this is being over thought!

[PeterHenry]

2 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Once again this is being over thought!

I'm not sure - I think it's a genuinely tricky question, which is why I asked it.

 

Put it another way - say someone is shooting pigeons at the request of the farmer, and the landowner tells them to move on. The pigeon shooter decides not to move on - are they guilty of poaching? 

[243deer]

With the greatest respect to all on pw, legal advice is best dispensed by members of the legal profession who will have knowledge not only of laws but of how they have been applied in specific cases on which our legal system is based

[PeterHenry]

2 minutes ago, 243deer said:

With the greatest respect to all on pw, legal advice is best dispensed by members of the legal profession who will have knowledge not only of laws but of how they have been applied in specific cases on which our legal system is based

I am a member of the legal profession, and honestly I'm stumped - which I why I wondered if anyone had come across anything like this before.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

If I was in the position you mention, I would give way.

 

But I feel it is extremely unlikely to ever become a problem............................................

[old'un]

48 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Sorry, and I take no pleasure in pointing it out - but your wrong.

[F1(1)The occupier shall kill and take ground game only by himself or by persons duly authorised by him in writing:

(a)The occupier himself and one other person authorised in writing by such occupier shall be the only persons entitled under this Act to kill ground game with firearms;

So you as the land owner cannot ban guns from your land?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

9 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I am a member of the legal profession, and honestly I'm stumped - which I why I wondered if anyone had come across anything like this before.

At what level are you a member of the legal profession?

[PeterHenry]

9 minutes ago, old'un said:

So you as the land owner cannot ban guns from your land?

Thats the logical conclusion as far I can tell, although the act does qualify it so that for the purpose of the act 'occupier' does not include someone who rented land for putting a horse on it, etc.

Forgive me for some repitition, but here is what I posted before, but with the preceding paragraph - 

1 Occupier to have a right inseparable from his occupation to kill ground game concurrently with any other person entitled to kill the same on land in his occupation.

Every occupier of land shall have, as incident to and inseparable from his occupation of the land, the right to kill and take ground game thereon, concurrently with any other person who may be entitled to kill and take ground game on the same land: Provided that the right conferred on the occupier by this section shall be subject to the following limitations:

[F1(1)The occupier shall kill and take ground game only by himself or by persons duly authorised by him in writing:

(a)The occupier himself and one other person authorised in writing by such occupier shall be the only persons entitled under this Act to kill ground game with firearms;

 

5 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

At what level are you a member of the legal profession?

Quite a low level / paralegal 

Edited July 16, 2021 by PeterHenry

[PeterHenry]

18 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

If I was in the position you mention, I would give way.

 

But I feel it is extremely unlikely to ever become a problem............................................

Sorry - I missed this post.

I agree, so would I. My manners would dictate that I left someones property if they asked me. Even if for whatever reason I didnt wish to, its certainly not something I would like to bet my certificate on.

It just seems odd that the answer to rabbits and game is quite clear cut, but pigeons are not.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

12 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Quite a low level / paralegal 

Can I politely suggest you ask your boss.

[PeterHenry]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Can I politely suggest you ask your boss.

As a firm we dont tend to deal with sporting rights.

I've no urge fall out with anyone over it, I just wondered if the collective mind of pigeon watch had come across it before.

[Old farrier]

So does ground game include any of the deer species and hares? 
I’m assuming that foxes are not included 

I class rabbits as pests but according to the act there game

pigeon is a separate issue and I would like to think they would be covered however it appears not 🤔

always assumed that the farmers gave the permission never thought about the corporation they rented the farm from 

huge can of worms in my opinion 

[PeterHenry]

1 minute ago, Old farrier said:

So does ground game include any of the deer species and hares? 
I’m assuming that foxes are not included 

I class rabbits as pests but according to the act there game

pigeon is a separate issue and I would like to think they would be covered however it appears not 🤔

always assumed that the farmers gave the permission never thought about the corporation they rented the farm from 

huge can of worms in my opinion 

 

Section 8 -

8 Interpretation clause.

For the purposes of this Act—

The words “ground game” mean hares and rabbits.

I agree - it's a can of worms, and potentially quite worrying if you think about it.

[clangerman]

legal position is irrelevant no farmer is going to upset the land owner so someone can shoot anything let alone pigeons simple as that 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, old'un said:

yes you can, Its yours or the tenants responsibility to control rabbits but as the land owner you can ban guns from your land.

I am not so sure. As a farming Tennant you have a right to protect your crop. Whilst a landlord might ban guns they could then be required to compensate the farmer for loss of earnings?£

[PeterHenry]

11 minutes ago, clangerman said:

legal position is irrelevant no farmer is going to upset the land owner so someone can shoot anything let alone pigeons simple as that 

You havent seen the contracts some farmers have - some of them allow them to pass the tenancy on for three generation's* and theres very little the Landowner can do about it from a legal perspective,** without potentially incuring some hefty compensation that goes in the direction of the farmer.

 

*two generation's - so three generation in all, counting the original farmer.

Edited July 16, 2021 by PeterHenry

[Free range Rob]

Just to add to the confusion, it also depends on the tenancy agreement between two parties.

I have thrown guns off rented land for the landowners, against the farmers wishes, it was clear in the tenancy they had no right to pest control of any kind, however the owner was liable for it .

I also rent land and sone of my tenancies expresses I am liable to keep all pest control in hand myself and any liability lies with me.

10 minutes ago, clangerman said:

legal position is irrelevant no farmer is going to upset the land owner so someone can shoot anything let alone pigeons simple as that 

Certainly not the case, a lot is done between land agents and owner-tennant never talk or meet, and every farmer I know wants vermin control done, even if they only saw one pigeon.

thankfully, most tennant-owner relationships are pretty amicable, and it would take quite an issue to make this scenario arise.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Free range Rob