Tenant farmers and shooting rights

[Raja Clavata]

Dear All,

So, over the last 6 months or so have built up a good rapport with the farmer on all my permissions - during this time he has opened up lots of additional land as the need to protect his crops has required.

 

My permission is on an informal basis and now covers a good few hundred acres and is granted on the basis of shotgun use only, every time I mention use of my rimfires he goes very quiet, despite the fact that others are shooting on some of the same land with, up to and including .243's.

 

Given that these others have permission directly from the land-owner (my farmer works most of his land on a tenant basis) I'm guessing his reluctance to discuss this with me may be because he doesn't have the rights to grant that permission. Any ideas if that sounds about right?

 

I do have the name of the landowner, and could easily obtain his contact details if required, just a bit reluctant to go that route at the moment. Of course I could ask the farmer what the arrangement is but a bit concerned that could be a touchy subject as I get the distinct impression that the people shooting on this land through land owner permission do cause my farmer a fair bit of concern.

 

Any thoughts or ideas on this appreciated - needless to say I will keep persevering...

 

Thanks in advance

Raja

[CharlieT]

Tenant farmers may or may not have within their tenancy agreement the ability to confer onto others the right to shoot on the land they farm. The owner may well have reserved the shooting rights.

However that said tenant farmers are permitted to control rabbits themselves and may also give authority for one other person to do for reward.

 

You may find that your farmer does not wish to rock the boat and therefore is reluctant to permit you to use a rifle.

As you say the best way forward is to gently keep persevering.

 

Brief details of the act are:

 

The right to shoot rabbits

 

The Ground Game Act 1880 gives an occupier the right to shoot rabbits on his/her land during the day and to authorise in writing one other person to do so. That person must be a member of the occupier’s household or staff, or be employed for reward. An occupier may apply to Natural England for authority to use a reasonable number of extra guns, if the owner of the shooting rights will neither permit the occupier to use extra guns, nor undertake to destroy the rabbits themselves. If you wish to apply to use extra guns. Under the 1880 Act, as interpreted by the courts and as read with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, only the following are allowed to shoot rabbits at night:

 

An owner-occupier with shooting rights , A landlord/landlady who has reserved their shooting rights, A shooting tenant not in occupation who has derived the shooting rights from the owner; and An occupier, or one other person authorised by them in writing, where the occupier has written authority from another person with shooting rights.

Edited May 13, 2009 by CharlieT

[Baldrick]

Charlie has summed it up correctly - the crux of the matter is that there's no consistency between tenancy agreements. In my working capacity, I manage about 40 tenancies of large farms, and shooting rights are an issue as contentious as the overall farm rent (we sometimes see close relatives suing each other over sporting rights). Most of the time, tenants, landlords and holders of shooting rights don't actually undertstand the relevant legal framework.

 

It sounds like your tenant farmer does not hold the shooting rights and as such, views your forays with your rimfire as something that could jeopardise his tenancy, or at least influence any forthcoming rent negotiations. I don't set much store by that kind of attitude, but

 

The tenant has an obligation in law to control rabbits, and there is nothing other than his attitude that should deny you the ability to shoot rabbits with a rimfire on that land. The Pest Act 1954 also applies. The tenant's permission for rabbit control is totally separate from any game shooting/stalking rights.

 

Highlight that a rimfire is more precise and discreet, and will give you a much larger bag of the little hopping ********, thus protecting his yields.

[Raja Clavata]

Thanks chaps that's all useful info.

 

TBH - he seems to be a bit in denial of the rabbit problem on both the OSR and beans; I've seen the rabbit numbers steadily increase over the last few months (as you would expect). Had a few with the shottie but, as mentioned, nothing like the yield that would be achievable with the .22lr.

 

Think I may have approached it the wrong way; asked about the rimmies before I started suggesting there might be a rabbit problem, concerned now that if I push the rabbit concerns too much he may think I'm blagging him (which of course I'm not).

 

Will see how it goes over the next few weeks or so, can't believe he won't begin to notice that the edge of his crops are moving towards the middle of the fields on a couple of the sites...

 

Thanks again

 

Raja

[Raja Clavata]

So, I now have permission to use my rimmies on a local clay shoot (when it's closed of course) for rabbits. Two of the fields I currently have shottie permission on are only a couple fields away

 

Will be phoning the farmer on the shottie permission to check exactly where the boundary of his tenancy is as it would be great to be able to walk between both sites.

 

Can't imagine this latest permission will do my quest to get the OK for rimmies on the tenant farmer fields any harm; in fact, hoping it gives me another angle to approach it from

 

ATB

Raja

[starlight32]

As mentioned earlier shooting rights are a mire to contend with... I have had my fair share as well over the years...

 

Most tenant farmers have a the option of a named gun such as with some farm tenancies leased from large estates. This can come though in many forms.Some the use of firearms some without, & limited quarry species too.

 

It is a fair assumption that there is in no consistancy in any of it...One peice of ground I shoot is for pigeon control and foxes but no rabbits..... Work that one out?

 

I have just found you are best go with the flow as if you try to be too helpful it normally backfires on you as it just aggravates another party.

 

I am also wary of what i call over 'populated' shooting areas too, when the amount of shooters becomes what I feel too many in a shooting area for shooting to avoid a clash among others. Its at that point I tend to move on.

[dcliff]

The law is one thing, a stubborn land owner is another. If the landowner says no then I can't imagine a tenant farmer fighting your cause. Years ago I shot rabbits on a farm, with the permission of the tenant farmer - yet without the knowledge of the landlord. One day the landlord was at the farm. The farmer said 'just go and ask him, to be on the safe side...' And he said no. I wasn't about to tussle with him about the rights of a tenant farmer or anything. Plus, I was only about 16 or so.

[Raja Clavata]

Yes, learning real fast about the complexities of all this; all a bit touchy at the moment. We got asked by the landowner, via the tenant farmer, not to shoot the pigeons in the proximity of a paddock adjoining a farm as it apparently freaked the horses out - we were very diligent on checking the effects of our shots and they were more inquistive than troubled. But of course such requests must be obeyed despite that effectively ruling out the best flight-line in the area.

 

By the same token, a fellow shooter, given permission from the landowner seems to be able to do exactly what he likes. Even at the potential detriment to the tenant farmer and his crops - such as leaving shot pigeons spread out over the top of the peas (perfectly OK while he is there shooting over them but not on to leave 'em there to rot!)