Why cant farmers be honest

[VSS]

As I understood it from the boss,he can do that only if the landlord doesn't do anything about the rabbits. If it's all been taken care of before damage gets out of hand,he wasn't supposed to let people just have a wander around on the place to see what's about.

No, that would be the situation regarding deer. Rabbits is different. See post #40 by @25 Sharps, above.
Provided he let them keep whatever rabbits they shot ( which constitutes payment) then all was above board, and the landlord did not have any right to prevent it.

 

[sikamalc]

I had this a few years back on a small permission I stalked for Roe near Petworth, West Sussex. The farm was a ramshackle affair of about 150 acres which I visited a few times during the buck season. In most instances I was succesfull.
On this particular instance I turned up with a client only to find a strange vehicle parked up in the yard. I didnt give it a great deal of thought at the time to be honest. The weather was warm but very foggy, and the area I usually stalked lay in a dip backing onto a large wood, which was the boundary.

Having not seen anything deer related I decided to make for my favorite spot which overlooked the large field backing onto the wood, only to find two other people in cammo with a rifle each. They moved off after words were exchanged to another part of the ground. With great fortune, I still managed to take a cull buck that morning.

Needless to say I required my money back from the farmer, which came some weeks later in an envelope that I had to pay the extra postage on.

Some landowners are a nightmare to deal with and your better off out of it, its not worth the aggro.

 

[25 Sharps]

No, that would be the situation regarding deer. Rabbits is different. See post #40 by @25 Sharps, above.
Provided he let them keep whatever rabbits they shot ( which constitutes payment) then all was above board, and the landlord did not have any right to prevent it.

Not sure, if there were 2 of them then this wouldn’t comply as from memory the Act is quite specific that it should be one person?

 

[VSS]

Not sure, if there were 2 of them then this wouldn’t comply as from memory the Act is quite specific that it should be one person?

It is members of his household + anyone usually in his service + 1 additional person authorised by him in writing.

There's nothing to say that it has to always be the same additional person, so provided that only one is authorised at any particular time that would be ok. Could effectively be authorised on a day by day basi.

 

[Foxyboy43]

I had exclusive rights to a prime bit of fox ground not far from me for a number of years and shot a lot of foxes on it.
One night I was walking back to the yard along the hedgerow and heard the unmistakeable sound of a pretty poor rabbit call just a field ahead of me. This was pre-NV/thermal so I quickly lit the place up and shouted as loud as I could in a less than friendly greeting. Two eejits were sitting in the field corner with a .17hmr and looking straight across to my route back.
During the short and sharp exchange it transpired that they had asked the elderly lady farmer who told them I was already out and would be down the lane but they went ahead anyhow and set up looking straight down to said lane.
Suffice to say they left a lot wiser than they arrived and have not been back since but they are still active as word has got round in this small community that they recently shot a sheep!
They stalk among us but what can you do?

 

[25 Sharps]

It is members of his household + anyone usually in his service + 1 additional person authorised by him in writing.

There's nothing to say that it has to always be the same additional person, so provided that only one is authorised at any particular time that would be ok. Could effectively be authorised on a day by day basi.

Yep, but if 2 of them were there together on the same day shooting (as it sounded in @Rhodesianjess post) then that would not comply.

 

[Rhodesianjess]

Yep, but if 2 of them were there together on the same day shooting (as it sounded in @Rhodesianjess post) then that would not comply.

Correct, two chaps setting up for a day's pigeon decoying. As is happens, I'm very strict on rabbits and pigeons,so I doubt they'd have fired a box of cartridges between them.
Likewise rabbits,I'm a professional keeper, employed to take care of any problems of the kind.
Got the impression that it was more likely letting a couple of mates have a bash now that he had some land to farm.

 

[VSS]

Yep, but if 2 of them were there together on the same day shooting (as it sounded in @Rhodesianjess post) then that would not comply.

No, @Rhodesianjess doesn't say that 2 (or more) were on the ground at the same time, only that a number of people had been given permission. We don't know if those permissions were concurrent or sequential.

With regard to the "two rifles" also mentioned in addition to the rabbiters, then if it was deer they were after then that too may have been legal and above board despite the landowner's objection. Most tenancy agreement templates were drafted when deer weren't about in the numbers that they are now, and are therefore not included in the standard list of game reserved exclusively to the landlord.

Edit: @Rhodesianjess posted while I was typing the above. He clears up a few points.

 

[25 Sharps]

No, @Rhodesianjess doesn't say that 2 (or more) were on the ground at the same time, only that a number of people had been given permission. We don't know if those permissions were concurrent or sequential.

With regard to the "two rifles" also mentioned in addition to the rabbiters, then if it was deer they were after then that too may have been legal and above board despite the landowner's objection. Most tenancy agreement templates were drafted when deer weren't about in the numbers that they are now, and are therefore not included in the standard list of game reserved exclusively to the landlord.

Edit: @Rhodesianjess posted while I was typing the above. He clears up a few points.

Just re-read, it was 2 he found in a hide so not on the rabbits.

 

[Rhodesianjess]

The rifle permissions granted by the tenant were both rimfires, the feo did his checks, the chap said yes I've given them permission, hence feo granted.
Just goes to show, you truly never know how others think. Tenant farm of just shy of 400 acres on a known shooting estate, you know there's a keeper who lives and works on the estate as I introduced myself the day after they moved in. Gave him vehicle description,told him I'd be about at silly times,any problems just get in touch etc. Still went ahead.
Think the situation is more of a reflection of the character involved than an indictment of farmers in general.
After all, not all Rhodesians are tall,dark, handsome, suave and debonair like my good self. Some are different

 

[foxhunter]

Some farmers think the more the merrier. I've shot on lots of places where you bump into various strangers now and again . Pretty rare these days to get ground all to yourself , it's at a premium.

 

[Mungo]

We could of course flip this thread round and ask ‘why can’t stalkers be honest’. Just as many dishonest stalkers out there…

 

[Overlay]

We could of course flip this thread round and ask ‘why can’t stalkers be honest’. Just as many dishonest stalkers out there…

Never - no no no no ——- who’d a thought that

 

[Mungo]

Never - no no no no ——- who’d a thought that

And let’s not start on keepers…

Try this one: long standing (10+ years) arrangement with an estate (who are family friends). New keeper starts. Made very clear to them that I have the stalking. Everyone introduced, phone numbers exchanged, all agreed, notification procedures sorted etc etc. All smiles, keeper just asks that I inform him a day or so in advance of when I’ll be out.

Within a few months, becomes very obvious that the keeper is letting his mates out to take deer as and when they please. Flat denial when challenged.

They of course know when I’m going to be out (because of the agreement to keep keeper informed).

 

[User00035]

My mate was asked if he could help out with the foxes on a shoot.
Apparently it was hit really hard last year when the birds arrived .
So we said we would take it on as long as nobody else was shooting them as it is over an hours drive away.
The farmer assured us nobody else shot on the ground.
So last night we travelled up full of anticipation only to be greeted by another 2 guys who were already there set up
This could have been very dangerous as where we set up was where the others were expecting to see foxes.
As we set up a voice emerged from the darkness stating " I suppose you're here for the same reason as us"
After a brief conversation it turns out these 2 guys have shot the foxes since last year and also told us the someone else had shot 2 foxes last week
So we told them " Don't worry we wont be back"
Hope my mate tells the farmer to stick his foxes where the sun doesn't shine as what a waste of time and effort along with the safety aspect.
We stayed for a couple of hours and saw nothing, I wonder why

If it's anything like the bit of ground I've got, there's more than one person handing out permission.
I got mine from the old man who I got to know socially, but he farms in partnership with his son who has also been given permission to other people without consulting father.
I don't think there's any deliberate attempt to be underhand- father and son are both decent people - but it's only vermin shooting, no money is changing hands and they don't think too much about the practicalities, assuming perhaps that more guns means better control.

The trouble where I am is the place is surrounded by grouse moors. Everybody and his mother shoots and ground is hard to come by and jealously guarded. Landowners who aren't grouse moor-owning hedge fund managers or Arab money launderers on whose ground no one can shoot except estate keepers or paying guests with very deep pockets get badgered to death for shooting rights from all and sundry and more or less leave shooters they've granted permission to fight it out amongst themselves. I've pretty much given up on it to be honest.

 

[Franchi Matt]

Honesty...? The way I've found it is - the more land the more lies. Small holders are the honest bunch.

 

[User00035]

And let’s not start on keepers…

Try this one: long standing (10+ years) arrangement with an estate (who are family friends). New keeper starts. Made very clear to them that I have the stalking. Everyone introduced, phone numbers exchanged, all agreed, notification procedures sorted etc etc. All smiles, keeper just asks that I inform him a day or so in advance of when I’ll be out.

Within a few months, becomes very obvious that the keeper is letting his mates out to take deer as and when they please. Flat denial when challenged.

They of course know when I’m going to be out (because of the agreement to keep keeper informed).

This happens all the time with syndicate shoots. I had the vermin shooting on a 1200 acre farm. A mate owned the stalking rights and I helped him out by taking clients out for him from time to time when he was overstretched. And between us we undertook badger cull as well as the farm was in the scheme. But they'd also rented some of the ground out to a small DIY pheasant shooting syndicate and we were forever running into total strangers wandering round with guns "doing keepering". They weren't. They were mates of mates within the shoot who were out having a jolly.

It was an cereal farm which had had a serious rabbit problem until I got in top of it which took a huge amount of work and the last thing I needed was some moron driving around randomly in a 4x4 shooting the odd rabbit out of the window, or turning up under a high seat which a European client had paid good money to sit in thinking he had the ground to himself.
Eventually they sub-let the agricultural land to a contract farming business and the manager was firmly on our side. He wanted proper vermin control and deer management, not a free for all, and pressured the landowner to get a grip on the situation. Eventually the pheasant shoot had their permission revoked and they were thrown off. For a number of years it then ran very smoothly with just me on the vermin and my mate on the stalking with a couple of trusted helpers whose details and vehicle ID were known to the estate, who helped out on the badgers and with stalking clients when needed.

 

[Andy seatrout]

No, the landlord has no control over the ground game (hares and rabbits) the whole point of the Act was to prevent landowners keeping the rights to rabbits. Any tenant has the right to give permission to a member of their household or one other person, for payment, to control ground game and the landowner cannot prevent it or stipulate the method.

You are right on the law certainly, but it depends on the tenancy agreement, if it stipulates otherwise then the terms of the tenancy take precedent…. The law only comes into effect if the agreement is silent… a shooting estate near me does not allow any shooting not authorised by the estate itself, if the tenant farmers have problems with rabbits or other, the keeper has to resolve it on behalf of the estate…

 

[VSS]

You are right on the law certainly, but it depends on the tenancy agreement, if it stipulates otherwise then the terms of the tenancy take precedent…. The law only comes into effect if the agreement is silent… a shooting estate near me does not allow any shooting not authorised by the estate itself, if the tenant farmers have problems with rabbits or other, the keeper has to resolve it on behalf of the estate…

No, you're wrong there. The Ground Game Act gives the tenant an inalienable right. It cannot be overridden by the terms of a tenancy agreement

 

[25 Sharps]

No, you're wrong there. The Ground Game Act gives the tenant an inalienable right. It cannot be overridden by the terms of a tenancy agreement

What he said, the whole point of the Act was to protect the tenant’s right to control ground game and protect his crops, preventing the landlord from keeping the shooting for himself.