I have been looking at property. One does not have the shooting rights 'in -hand'.
I have been advised that custom and practice in the area dictates that tenants and landowners who dont have shooting rights, ignore the law and shoot will-nilly at anything they choose to.
However, a tenant or owner, where the shooting rights (usually called sporting rights as includes fishing) are not 'in-hand', can legally only shoot hares and rabbits and then only from one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset this being the inalienable right to take 'Ground Game'.
It seems to me that if the owner of the shooting rights lets them to someone, those who own the lease would prosecute and in, say, the case of deer, taken under ground game rights, could pursue a case for 'armed trespass', since it is poaching, even if the landowner (who doesnt have the sporting rights) is the guilty party.
Am I being 'old world' here, should I ignore the fact that I may not own the 'sporting rights?
Any answers and opinions appreciated, with your viewpoint linked to your interest (eg Gamekeeper of let shoot).
Thanks in advance.