Legality of following up a shot deer onto another's land

[Oly]

I presuming it's trespass, but thought I would check - given that deer can run quite some distance before dropping, are there any legal loopholes that permit the retrieval of shot deer on another owners land?

Purely theoretical, but thought it an interesting question to get a definitive answer on.

 

[Gazza]

Don't believe any offence committed would be trespass particularly in Scotland where we now have the right to roam. Wild deer have no ownership till dead and I would therefore suspect that the offence in entering another's land without consent to recover a deer, although shot on your land, could constitute theft. Perhaps a bit tricky if the deer shot on your land dropped on another's but was not dead. To delay dispatching the deer could be causing unnecessary suffering but on the other hand to enter another's property with a firearm?

As a precaution I always seek permission to enter the surrounding land to any permission I have solely to recover or dispatch any deer shot on my ground. Never been refused on the basis that if a wounded deer entered another's land and I was not permitted to dispatch it immediately it could be construed that the other landowner was contributing to causing unnecessary suffering.

 

[devon deer stalker]

Different in England i believe.
You will need permission to follow up the deer from the landowner.
If the deer is lying dead on the neighbours land and you remove it then you could be charged with theft.
The deer act will cover the legalities.
Cheers
Richard

 

[Oly]

Does anyone know what the FC's position is on this? I'm hopefully going to start shooting a friend's farm that backs onto FC's woodland - they have rangers but they are a bit thin on the ground so thought I would go and help with the deer issue. Would FC have a dim view on retrieval of deer on their land? And how would you go about finding the right person to contact to get the OK?

 

[flytie]

The FC's position on thism, as a Government Quango, would be that you would be committing theft! I suggest that you ring the FC, names and address's are published in Sporting Rifle for the local FC's around the country.

ft

 

[Bavarianbrit]

I believe there is also "armed trespass" legislation to beware of.
Martin

 

[Paul at Fechan]

In scotland you can track and kill a beast on land where you don't have permission if there's a welfare issue like say it was leg shot. Upon death though it becomes the property of the person with the stalking rights or land owner for that ground.

Recovery of the beast can still take place with permission or where it is not possible to contact the person to get permission the beast can still be extracted providing notice of the cull and extraction is logged with the police so that is not theft with the holder of the stalking rights/land owner being able to claim the carcass.

From a legal point of view if they claimed a carcass weeks later and you'd ate it, although they can claim against you for the value of the carcass you can counter claim for the costs of your service provided to cull, dress and remove the beast from their property.

 

[Gazza]

All areas have FC district offices that can be contacted. The phone number is often displayed on the main entrance to the forest block. I have a similar situation where I have my pheasant ground. There is only roe in the area and with the trees being mature the FC rangers do not have a deer issue at all. The persons who could have issues are the surrounding farmers on whose ground the roe from the FC ground feed. So in actual fact it may only be your host who has any issues and not the FC. This is where a collaborative deer management plan comes in.

The Fc ground that borders my pheasant shoot is very much a recreational area for walkers etc and the Fc have to be very careful of what the public observe on their ground bearing in mind that the public in the main get pleasure from seeing wild deer although most realise that they must be managed.

Maybe not just as simple as you would think. I do have an arrangement with the Fc whereby I can enter their ground but it is at very limited times when members of the public are not around. I either have to tailor my deer management to those times or make very sure that any deer I shoot stays on my side of the fence.

Don't kid yourself that Fc rangers although thin on the ground cannot effectively reduce deer populations. The lamp on the roof of some of their vehicles is not there to shoot fox.

 

[RickoShay]

Armed trespass is a very serious offence, as is shooting beyond boundaries. The suffering of the animal is something the shooter would have to deal with in collaboration with the landowner where the animal is. Advice would be to speak with adjoining landowners in advance and in anticipation of such an event and getting written permission to track injured animals for humane disposal - but exclude the use of the firearm and use your knife. May sound a bit messy but the alternatives are 'break the law' or 'let the animal suffer' none of which are acceptable. You will of course need to secure your firearm too, so you will need to have a very clear plan in your head about what you are going to do when, and if, this event happens - this will make managing it easier and less risky.

 

[Harry mac]

Does anyone know what the FC's position is on this? I'm hopefully going to start shooting a friend's farm that backs onto FC's woodland - they have rangers but they are a bit thin on the ground so thought I would go and help with the deer issue. Would FC have a dim view on retrieval of deer on their land? And how would you go about finding the right person to contact to get the OK?

The land I stalk also borders FC land, and I got the keeper to enquire with the FC ranger about this exact thing. His reply was "do not follow deer into my area". He didn't say it in an unfriendly manner, but gave the impression that FC do not allow it.

 

[Tamus]

Don't believe any offence committed would be trespass particularly in Scotland where we now have the right to roam. .

Not so, at all, in Scotland, can't say about Wales, N.I. or England cos I don't know. Up here the so called "right to roam" is quite clear about the purposes for which one is allowed to be on or cross land and taking game on land without the permission of the owner of the game rights (or being on any land for such purpose, without permission) is clearly prohibited.

On the other hand, if you are acting in the interests of animal welfare and fess up to the land owner/owner of the relevant game rights... immediately... i.e. all stalking stops right there and you begin to make the effort to contact the relevant parties... whose contact info you really should make it your business to have before you even go onto your own ground (and you also offer them the carcass) then I can't see that any prosecution would neccessarily follow, unless there were other matters to be taken into consideration.

The short answer is, you really don't want to get caught out by having to deal with this situation.

Now shoot me down for saying this, since that is the usual form on here

 

[Mannlicher_Stu]

In scotland you can track and kill a beast on land where you don't have permission if there's a welfare issue like say it was leg shot. Upon death though it becomes the property of the person with the stalking rights or land owner for that ground.

Recovery of the beast can still take place with permission or where it is not possible to contact the person to get permission the beast can still be extracted providing notice of the cull and extraction is logged with the police so that is not theft with the holder of the stalking rights/land owner being able to claim the carcass.

From a legal point of view if they claimed a carcass weeks later and you'd ate it, although they can claim against you for the value of the carcass you can counter claim for the costs of your service provided to cull, dress and remove the beast from their property.

Spot on Paul as usual .

 

[Tamus]

Spot on Paul as usual .

I hate to be the one to say, but I think you'll find the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 does not agree with Paul's very reasonable view and alters our peviously held rights substantially. Of course, this is one of the many aspects of that messy act which need to be tested in court. However, please note the following (esp. para 9(c) below) ;

9 Conduct excluded from access rights
The conduct which is within this section is-

• (a) being on or crossing land in breach of an interdict or other order of a court;

• (b) being on or crossing land for the purpose of doing anything which is an offence or a breach of an interdict or other order of a court;

• (c) hunting, shooting or fishing;

• (d) being on or crossing land while responsible for a dog or other animal which is not under proper control;

• (e) being on or crossing land for the purpose of taking away, for commercial purposes or for profit, anything in or on the land;

• (f) being on or crossing land in or with a motorised vehicle or vessel (other than a vehicle or vessel which has been constructed or adapted for use by a person who has a disability and which is being used by such a person);

• (g) being, for any of the purposes set out in section 1(3) above, on land which is a golf course.

 

[Mannlicher_Stu]

I hate to be the one to say, but I think you'll find the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 does not agree with Paul's very reasonable view and alters our peviously held rights substantially. Of course, this is one of the many aspects of that messy act which need to be tested in court. However, please note the following (esp. para 9(c) below) ;

9 Conduct excluded from access rights
The conduct which is within this section is-

• (a) being on or crossing land in breach of an interdict or other order of a court;

• (b) being on or crossing land for the purpose of doing anything which is an offence or a breach of an interdict or other order of a court;

• (c) hunting, shooting or fishing;

• (d) being on or crossing land while responsible for a dog or other animal which is not under proper control;

• (e) being on or crossing land for the purpose of taking away, for commercial purposes or for profit, anything in or on the land;

• (f) being on or crossing land in or with a motorised vehicle or vessel (other than a vehicle or vessel which has been constructed or adapted for use by a person who has a disability and which is being used by such a person);

• (g) being, for any of the purposes set out in section 1(3) above, on land which is a golf course.

I think if you contact them they will confirm a person has a right under the access code to travess land with a firearm covered or not to gain access to land that you have right to shoot over anywhere in scotland as long as the weapon in not ready to fire that means loaded.

 

[Tamus]

I think if you contact them they will confirm a person has a right under the access code to travess land with a firearm covered or not to gain access to land that you have right to shoot over anywhere in scotland as long as the weapon in not ready to fire that means loaded.

Who them?.... The Scottish ministers?

Anyway, your point is, quite correct; you may "cross" land from one point to another for the purposes you wish. However, huntin shootin and fishin you may certainly not do, where you don't have permission, and you are specifically Excluded from doing it by the above Act.

 

[Tamus]

Sorry all. As ever, the law says what it says, not what we or any other third party wish it to say and what it means is decided by the Judicial system, in Court, (almost) regardless of Home Office or SNH publications.

Be that as it may, I've fallen into the trap myself, of saying what the law says. I should have been clearer in my last post.

A shooter hunter or fisher is at liberty to cross land for those purposes, it would seem. However, a "Right" of "Access" to land for those purposes is evidently now specifically "Excluded Conduct" (unless you have permish). Almost wot I rote, but not quite. As to what would follow if you contravened this legislation, good luck finding out.

 

[Mannlicher_Stu]

Lets put it this way then.
If I shoot a beast on my land and it jumps the fence and expires on another persons land, I would unload my rifle ,remove the bolt and keep such in my possesion climb the fence after concealing my rifle and retrieve the beast, notify the land owner that i have in my possesion a beast that i shot on my ground but expired on his . I am holding it for his disposal , failing which I would as Paul says notify the Police of the circumstances imediately informing them that I could not contact the owner and give them a surfiet of information that i would hold it for a period of time ,and if the owner did not contact me it would be disposed of by what ever method i felt fit, and that would inc getting it down my gizzer.

It would of course always be advisable having a witness who would be prepared to substaniate the circumstances of the event.

 

[Tamus]

Lets put it this way then.
If I shoot a beast on my land and it jumps the fence and expires on another persons land, I would unload my rifle ,remove the bolt and keep such in my possesion climb the fence after concealing my rifle and retrieve the beast, notify the land owner that i have in my possesion a beast that i shot on my ground but expired on his . I am holding it for his disposal , failing which I would as Paul says notify the Police of the circumstances imediately informing them that I could not contact the owner and give them a surfiet of information that i would hold it for a period of time ,and if the owner did not contact me it would be disposed of by what ever method i felt fit, and that would inc getting it down my gizzer.

It would of course always be advisable having a witness who would be prepared to substaniate the circumstances of the event.

Sounds reasonable to me Stu

However, I'm a land owner and shooter myself. I'd soon get pretty tired of hearing that pish over the phone from some-one who lives hundreds of miles away and if you rubbed me the wrong way I'd probably be quite ready to consider invoking legislation to put an end to such irritation.... Just kidding... Maybe

 

[Tamus]

Since the OP raised such a valid and interesting question, regarding a situation which probably happens quite frequently... and surely is a prickly problem.

Can we now perhaps consider and/or discuss, The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996?

Part III Offences in relation to deer
17 Unlawful killing, taking and injuring of deer

(1) Subject to section 25 of this Act, any person who, without legal right to take or kill deer or without permission from a person having such right, takes or wilfully kills or injures deer on any land shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to section 25 of this Act, any person who, without legal right to take or kill deer on any land or without permission from a person having such right, removes any deer carcase from that land shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Subject to section 25 of this Act, any person who wilfully kills or injures any deer otherwise than by shooting shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) In subsection (3) above “shooting” means discharging a firearm of a class prescribed in an order under section 21(1) of this Act.

 

[Labrat]

A person commits an offence if, while he has a firearm [or imitation firearm] [FN2] with him, he enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him).

So, it would be a case by case judgement for the magistrates/jury on whether reasonable excuse applied - I'd suggest that a reasonable person would say that in a genuine case of a wounded or injured animal crossing a boundary, this would apply.

(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person enters any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person while on any land—

(a)intentionally takes, kills or injures, or attempts to take, kill or injure, any deer,

(b)searches for or pursues any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, or

(c)removes the carcase of any deer,

without the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or other lawful authority, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above by reason of anything done in the belief that—

(a)he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it; or

(b)he has other lawful authority to do it.

So, arguably, you're better NOT asking the question of your neighbouring landowner, as if he refuses then you no longer have the defence of believing that, in the circumstances of an injured or wounded animal, he would allow you to do - ignorance is bliss!