A word of caution when near cattle.

[slider]

I'm quite the opposite. I've bought a couple of acres of woodland, and I've made sure that the people in the local area know that they're very welcome to use it ( not that their is are many people in the local area).
The way I see it is . Thanks to the generosity of (mainly)farmers over the years , I've been able to shoot and fish , over thousands of acres of land , so it would be a bit selfish of me to stop others from getting pleasure from my tiny plot.

Nice to see someone who "gets it". While on paper people may be owners of land we are really just custodians and should take a responsible attitude to access and preserving that land for future generations

 

[VSS]

In all honesty. I'd be quite happy with that , and if I did sell the land, I would have it written into the contract, that they kept a right of way through the land (as they walk through to visit the neighbour on the other side of the land), although , if it was used and abused by hundreds of people every day , I might see things differently.

When we first bumped into the owners of the neighbouring land , I offered them access , and use of my land , this was immediately welcomed by them , with an offer for me to use their land as well. We've now become quite friendly with the neighbours, and they often pop into the woodland when we're having a bbq , or doing a few targets with the guns . They've also told us where they hide the spare key to the house , so that we can use their landline , or stay at their house , should we ever get into trouble when they aren't at home .
Several other benefits of being friendly with the neighbours, are . Whenever they visit , they bring homemade, flapjacks , cakes , jams , and also , they used to be totally anti shooting townies , but now we've spent hours upon hours talking about shooting , and other fieldsports , they happily accept , venison , pheasant, trout , and have a much greater understanding of shooting folks.

That's the way it should be, but it only takes one ****hole to spoil it for everyone.

 

[RescueMe0007]

Well, you would say that wouldn’t you?
But trespassing is a civil offence and doesn’t merit extra judicial summary execution except in exceptional circumstances.
You can be as ticked off as you like ( just don’t run up to me shouting DUCK DUCK DUCK, that’s very contagious and I’ll probably shout duck duck duck right back ).
The fact that you put up a sign and that I can read it, doesn’t mean that I agree that you have the right to dictate how I behave on a public pathway. Being literate also doesn’t guarantee that I know where the boundary is, unless its fenced, which it often isn’t on open pasture or the uplands.
Look around. Police are not enforcing the laws of trespass, you’re on your own and theres a lot more trespassers every year.
The right to roam is now a fact because the public perceives it to be a fact, likes it, and is just doing it.
Frankly I don’t think that you can get the smoke back in the bottle.

There is no "right to roam" in this jurisdiction, perhaps you're referring to adverse possession (established by people doing something consistently over a period of greater than twelve years without the land owners permission) which is the foundation of a number of rights of way in the state but does not constitute a "right to roam". They are however a limited right, no one has no right to let one's stock (including dogs, run free) when using a right of way, to do so leaves one open to prosecution and dogs are required to be kept under control. I have personal knowledge of a chap who let his dog run free in a pasture with the farmer's livestock in it, the dog stirred up the livestock and was then shot by the landowner. The dog owner received short shrift from AGS and the courts when he attempted to pursue the matter. I suspect the specific circumstances will play a significant role in determining ones cause of action. The fact that the number of trespassers is increasing doesn't establish any rights for said trespassers. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) imposes a duty of care on occupiers to all lawful visitors to ensure that they are reasonably safe for the purpose for which they are on the occupier's premises. The amendments in 1984 & 1995 have not changed that aspect of duty of care under torts. That's why one sees all those signs hung on landowners gates declining any duty of care towards trespassers on their property. When you speak of execution (a term used for the lawful killing of humans) about a dog, it's emotive and misleading (smacks of tabloid journalists).
You'll recall the issue a number of weeks ago where a landowner in Wicklow (an area with which you are familiar) was assaulted by a person who had brought his dogs on to a footpath (which the landowner had given leave for walkers to use, with the caveat that dogs were to be kept under control and on a leash at all times), the walker had allowed his dogs off the lead and out of his control. When the landowner (an elderly man) remonstrated with the walker he was physically assaulted. I understand the AGS are pursuing the matter. The landowner as a result of having received this reward for his generosity in permitting walkers to use his land for passage has now withdrawn said permission and excluded all walkers. The result of the behaviour of one conceited and entitled sh1te! who hopefully will find himself before a justice to answer for his actions.
In this I'm on the side of the landowners, if you're a trespasser you are the author of your own misfortune and if you lose your dog look to one's own behaviour not the landowner.

 

[mel b3]

Nice to see someone who "gets it". While on paper people may be owners of land we are really just custodians and should take a responsible attitude to access and preserving that land for future generations

That's pretty much the way I see things. The land was here a long time before me , and it'll be here a long time after I've gone . I'm just keeping it clean and tidy while I'm here.

That's the way it should be, but it only takes one ****hole to spoil it for everyone.

You're spot on . This is true with most things in life . Someone always comes along , and xxxxx it up for everyone else.
I've always said that most farmers would be happy for folks to have a stroll around their land , and shoot a few rabbits , deer , pigeons , but , and it's a very big BUT , they can't risk some eejit , coming along , trampling crops, stealing diesel, leaving gates open , and all manner of other stupid things . That's the reason that shooting can often be so hard to come by.

 

[RescueMe0007]

That's pretty much the way I see things. The land was here a long time before me , and it'll be here a long time after I've gone . I'm just keeping it clean and tidy while I'm here.

You're spot on . This is true with most things in life . Someone always comes along , and xxxxx it up for everyone else.
I've always said that most farmers would be happy for folks to have a stroll around their land , and shoot a few rabbits , deer , pigeons , but , and it's a very big BUT , they can't risk some eejit , coming along , trampling crops, stealing diesel, leaving gates open , and all manner of other stupid things . That's the reason that shooting can often be so hard to come by.

Absolutely agree with your sentiment, I had occasion to visit and speak with a significant number of landowners in the South & West of Ireland during April. With two exceptions they all invited me to reduce various nuisance species on their property when they realised I was a responsible stalker (I've helped a few of them out since). They had one specific fear, our indigenous, nomadic community, who were actively canvassing areas under some fictitious pretext and later resorting to breaking and entering and stealing anything of value. They were reasonably and rightly angry and concerned and it soured their view of any unknown entity on their property.

 

[mel b3]

Absolutely agree with your sentiment, I had occasion to visit and speak with a significant number of landowners in the South & West of Ireland during April. With two exceptions they all invited me to reduce various nuisance species on their property when they realised I was a responsible stalker (I've helped a few of them out since). They had one specific fear, our indigenous, nomadic community, who were actively canvassing areas under some fictitious pretext and later resorting to breaking and entering and stealing anything of value. They were reasonably and rightly angry and concerned and it soured their view of any unknown entity on their property.

Exactly this .
It's a shame when we see new shooters that can't get permission to shoot . They've done nothing wrong , and you can bet your last penny , that most farmers refuse them shooting permission, because of what some other eejit did in the past.
On the positive side . Once you've worked hard enough to get your first permission (and looked after it). You'll find that other permissions just fall into your lap.

 

[Dunwaters]

There is no "right to roam" in this jurisdiction, perhaps you're referring to adverse possession (established by people doing something consistently over a period of greater than twelve years without the land owners permission) which is the foundation of a number of rights of way in the state but does not constitute a "right to roam". They are however a limited right, no one has no right to let one's stock (including dogs, run free) when using a right of way, to do so leaves one open to prosecution and dogs are required to be kept under control. I have personal knowledge of a chap who let his dog run free in a pasture with the farmer's livestock in it, the dog stirred up the livestock and was then shot by the landowner. The dog owner received short shrift from AGS and the courts when he attempted to pursue the matter. I suspect the specific circumstances will play a significant role in determining ones cause of action. The fact that the number of trespassers is increasing doesn't establish any rights for said trespassers. The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) imposes a duty of care on occupiers to all lawful visitors to ensure that they are reasonably safe for the purpose for which they are on the occupier's premises. The amendments in 1984 & 1995 have not changed that aspect of duty of care under torts. That's why one sees all those signs hung on landowners gates declining any duty of care towards trespassers on their property. When you speak of execution (a term used for the lawful killing of humans) about a dog, it's emotive and misleading (smacks of tabloid journalists).
You'll recall the issue a number of weeks ago where a landowner in Wicklow (an area with which you are familiar) was assaulted by a person who had brought his dogs on to a footpath (which the landowner had given leave for walkers to use, with the caveat that dogs were to be kept under control and on a leash at all times), the walker had allowed his dogs off the lead and out of his control. When the landowner (an elderly man) remonstrated with the walker he was physically assaulted. I understand the AGS are pursuing the matter. The landowner as a result of having received this reward for his generosity in permitting walkers to use his land for passage has now withdrawn said permission and excluded all walkers. The result of the behaviour of one conceited and entitled sh1te! who hopefully will find himself before a justice to answer for his actions.
In this I'm on the side of the landowners, if you're a trespasser you are the author of your own misfortune and if you lose your dog look to one's own behaviour not the landowner.

I understand that the “ right to roam” is not legally established.
I would argue that its come by stealth. COVID had a big influence.
The statutes exist and there are penalties, but if the police generally won’t intervene, you have to do it your self or put up with the nuisance. That involves considerable risk.
If you adopt a DIY approach, you yourself stand a good chance of winding up on a charge.
Both fox hunting and grouse shooting have been the focus of coordinated protests for years, shoots are now experiencing organised protests and disruption, theres been numerous incidents of mass trespass and protest with legitimate revenue generating enterprises disrupted with the police standing by but on very few occasions do they respond by removing the trespassers and that’s not a swipe at the police.
The existing statutes are not being enforced, penalties are not being handed down and compensation is not being awarded.
Trespass goes unpunished, therefor in practice I can ignore the law and go where I like.
I’m aware of the case in Wicklow, I strongly suspect that the landowner may find his generosity biting him on the backside, making a path public is easy, making it private again once established in the public domain is virtually impossible, there are a few precedents and each time the ” public right of way” argument has trumped the landowners right to withdraw conceded public access.

 

[RescueMe0007]

I understand that the “ right to roam” is not legally established.
I would argue that its come by stealth. COVID had a big influence.
The statutes exist and there are penalties, but if the police generally won’t intervene, you have to do it your self or put up with the nuisance. That involves considerable risk.
If you adopt a DIY approach, you yourself stand a good chance of winding up on a charge.
Both fox hunting and grouse shooting have been the focus of coordinated protests for years, shoots are now experiencing organised protests and disruption, theres been numerous incidents of mass trespass and protest with legitimate revenue generating enterprises disrupted with the police standing by but on very few occasions do they respond by removing the trespassers and that’s not a swipe at the police.
The existing statutes are not being enforced, penalties are not being handed down and compensation is not being awarded.
Trespass goes unpunished, therefor in practice I can ignore the law and go where I like.
I’m aware of the case in Wicklow, I strongly suspect that the landowner may find his generosity biting him on the backside, making a path public is easy, making it private again once established in the public domain is virtually impossible, there are a few precedents and each time the ” public right of way” argument has trumped the landowners right to withdraw conceded public access.

I'm not aware of these specific cases, I would be obliged if you would point the way. The most high profile case I can recall dealing with this subject matter was Lisadell House in Sligo, in that instance the Supreme Court found in favour of the landowners.

 

[Dunwaters]

I'm not aware of these specific cases, I would be obliged if you would point the way. The most high profile case I can recall dealing with this subject matter was Lisadell House in Sligo, in that instance the Supreme Court found in favour of the landowners.

Here’s a few off the top of my head, I’m not a lawyer but…
Moy Anglers were involved, local landowners wanted trespass fees for access to the river, it went to the Supreme Court, Angling access is sacrosanct, you can’t legally obstruct or prevent. You also can’t do anything with your land which may adversely affect angling.
Sligo, not Lissadell. A local farmer had traditionally permitted access via a private pathway to Ben Bullben, I wont guarantee the location. Numbers using the path grew and he tried to block it with gates and a tractor, I think the path ran through his yard.
He went to court and lost. He was a colourful character and decorated his yard with various signs indicating his displeasure with the decision, he got dragged into court again and lost that too.
Lissadell was a bit different, again all from memory, it had been open to local use but closed one day a year. Sligo CC published a map of rights of way or informed the owners that rights of way had been established and would be published. This was disputed, one of the new rights of way went right through the private area around the house.
The owners closed the whole estate down, went to court and won.
This is all ROI case law.
The UK is different.

 

[RescueMe0007]

Here’s a few off the top of my head, I’m not a lawyer but…
Moy Anglers were involved, local landowners wanted trespass fees for access to the river, it went to the Supreme Court, Angling access is sacrosanct, you can’t legally obstruct or prevent. You also can’t do anything with your land which may adversely affect angling.
Sligo, not Lissadell. A local farmer had traditionally permitted access via a private pathway to Ben Bullben, I wont guarantee the location. Numbers using the path grew and he tried to block it with gates and a tractor, I think the path ran through his yard.
He went to court and lost. He was a colourful character and decorated his yard with various signs indicating his displeasure with the decision, he got dragged into court again and lost that too.
Lissadell was a bit different, again all from memory, it had been open to local use but closed one day a year. Sligo CC published a map of rights of way or informed the owners that rights of way had been established and would be published. This was disputed, one of the new rights of way went right through the private area around the house.
The owners closed the whole estate down, went to court and won.
This is all ROI case law.
The UK is different.

Thanks, unfortunately I can't establish the details of the cases you mentioned except for Lisadell. Where the whole point of declining access for one day of each year was to validate their control of the property and undermining any claim of adverse possession (right of way , established by custom and practice) because they were letting the public access on many routes around said property. That's why they won in the Supreme Court.

 

[Jon P]

Aristocrat fined £15,000 after cows trample dog walkers leaving them fearing for their lives — LBC

A landowner has been fined £15,000 after his cows launched a "frenzied and intense attack" on dog walkers.

apple.news

Landowner fined for dangerous cattle

 

[John Gryphon]

Landowner fined for dangerous cattle

That is a world gone too far....an effing ridiculous decision.

 

[Triggermortis]

If ever there was a reminder just how dangerous large livestock can be this must be it, the gentleman was very experienced, worked with cattle all his life and according to the inquest was adhering to a good safe system of work, even then things can go wrong.

Dalbeattie farmer died after attack by cow with her calf

An inquiry finds no precautions could have avoided Derek Roan's death on his farm near Dalbeattie.

www.bbc.com

 

[Bowland blades]

If ever there was a reminder just how dangerous large livestock can be this must be it, the gentleman was very experienced, worked with cattle all his life and according to the inquest was adhering to a good safe system of work, even then things can go wrong.

Dalbeattie farmer died after attack by cow with her calf

An inquiry finds no precautions could have avoided Derek Roan's death on his farm near Dalbeattie.

www.bbc.com

Yep cows are very panic prone with tiny brains get a massive amount of capacity . I have to put up with them all the summer months here as they are put out in the fields along with a massive Bull and calves . Farm owners are extra cautious , i warn walkers who have kids and we had about 50K insurance pay out for damages for repairs as they smashed though our fences seeking shelter from a big rain storm . Tried moving them with my stick in my PJs in the middle of the night But the Bull stuck his head down towards me and a figured , daylight and more experianced hands where required for the job !

 

[tozzybum]

These "visitors" to my permission are Moreland cattle that don't see humans from 1 month to the next.
And with calves in tow physcho doesn't cover it.
Picture taken from up a high seat

 

[VSS]

These "visitors" to my permission are Moreland cattle that don't see humans from 1 month to the next.
And with calves in tow physcho doesn't cover it.
Picture taken from up a high seat

How many days have you been up there now?

 

[tozzybum]

3 times they've "trapped " me ,the matriarch bellows get him and on they charge.
Sooner they go home the better it's like being surrounded by mothers in law

 

[John Gryphon]

How many days have you been up there now?

ha ha very funny, take lots of ammo next time Tozz...just in case.