Footpaths legality for dogs?

[VSS]

I think the rifle also has to be unloaded - i.e. not available for immediate use? I think it is something to do with the finer points of armed trespass? Loaded is, and unloaded isn't.

You can't be guilty of trespass where you have a right to be (ie, on a public footpath). Unloaded would be advisable, but whether unloaded or loaded, provided you have "reasonable excuse" you're in the clear.
(For example, written permission to shoot on a piece of land that could be accessed via that public footpath would be "reasonable excuse" for carrying your rifle on a public path that was not part of the land over which you had permission to shoot).

 

[Greenmist]

An old shooting partner used to keep a wire cutter in his bag, he used to snip fences to let his lab through then twist it back together.

I'd be livid if that happened to my fences, however in your described situation, if the wire was loose enough to be twisted back together, it would be loose enough to lift to allow the dog through

 

[west_meon]

You can't be guilty of trespass where you have a right to be (ie, on a public footpath). Unloaded would be advisable, but whether unloaded or loaded, provided you have "reasonable excuse" you're in the clear.
(For example, written permission to shoot on a piece of land that could be accessed via that public footpath would be "reasonable excuse" for carrying your rifle on a path that was not part of the land over which you had permission to shoot).

At risk of being slightly out of my depth, there is a difference between trespass (a civil offence) and armed trespass (a criminal offence). You wouldn't be guilty of trespass if on a PROW with an unloaded firearm, but if carrying a loaded firearm on land where you have no permission, even if on a PROW, it implies an intent to commit an offence so could make you liable for armed trespass. If on route to your permitted land, you would have to show good reason why you could not reasonably have had time to load your firearm once you reached your permitted area.

We are getting into the realms of legal details, where the devil usually lurks.... speaking of which, could any lawyers or solicitors out there put us on the right track (or footpath)?

 

[VSS]

At risk of being slightly out of my depth, there is a difference between trespass (a civil offence) and armed trespass (a criminal offence). You wouldn't be guilty of trespass if on a PROW with an unloaded firearm, but if carrying a loaded firearm on land where you have no permission it implies an intent to commit an offence so could make you liable for armed trespass. If on route to your permitted land, you would have to show good reason why you could not reasonably have had time to load your firearm once you reached your permitted area.

We are getting into the realms of legal details, where the devil usually lurks.... speaking of which, could any lawyers or solicitors out there put us on the right track (or footpath)?

Yes, in essence I believe you are correct. You would have to be acting lawfully on the footpath in order not to be guilty of trespass. In other words, using the footpath for what it is meant to be used for, ie getting from one place to another.
But if you could - theoretically speaking - demonstrate that you had a justifiable reason for your rifle being loaded, then the fact that it was loaded in a public place would not, in itself, be an offence.

(At least, that's the way I understand it!)

 

[Trickyd66]

Having changed the subject (sorry) my personal view is that footpaths exist as they were created as a means for the majority of the population to make their way to and from work, other villages, places of worship etc. As very few owned horses or other transport .
In todays world, most footpaths are used for recreational purposes.
Now, whether footpaths should be brought up to a standard where any man, woman, with or without dogs can use them is debatable.

I live on the edge of a small town, during covid one popular field went from having a tractor width path up the side of the crops to having a 20m wide barren strip. The same land owner had people wandering all over his fields, picnics, dogs running free etc.

These are all now lined with stockproof fencing at some considerable cost to himself, but for me it spoils the feel of being on a footpath, but unfortunately he had no option

 

[JTO]

Apart from that they never go near foot paths as that means dealing with people who most are a pain in the rear

Ramblers AKA Hemorrhoids, because they come out in bunches and are a PITA.

 

[Dunwaters]

That's simply not possible on a tensioned wire fence. The cut ends would spring apart, and it would take several tonnes of pull to get them back together again. Not something you can do by hand.
Even if the wire was only partially tensioned, there still wouldn't be enough slack to overlap the two cut ends enough to twist them together. Your friend would have had to carry a load of bits of wire with him to do the joints.
Sounds like he was just a bit of a vandal, happy to damage other people's property. We can do without his type in the countryside. I'd have kicked him off my land pretty sharpish.

Not if he was on a right of way or had a right of access.
Just because you own the land, you can’t do what you like, you’re not allowed to impede access where other rights prevail and access to exercise rights to shoot or fish are very senior rights.
Back in those days we tensioned fences with a claw hammer. Or a tractor.
Different times, it was 50 years ago and there was a lot more laissez faire on both sides.
For example, if you tried to climb a gate hinged with baler twine on a diagonal and it tipped and threw you into the clag you took it as one of the hazards of a day out in the country, you didn’t dial a lawyer.

 

[VSS]

Not if he was on a right of way or had a right of access.
Just because you own the land, you can’t do what you like, you’re not allowed to impede access where other rights prevail and access to exercise rights to shoot or fish are very senior rights.
Back in those days we tensioned fences with a claw hammer. Or a tractor.
Different times, it was 50 years ago and there was a lot more laissez faire on both sides.
For example, if you tried to climb a gate hinged with baler twine on a diagonal and it tipped and threw you into the clag you took it as one of the hazards of a day out in the country, you didn’t dial a lawyer.

People who have a right to enter land to shoot or fish should use gates and stiles, just like everyone else. With the agreement of the landowner and / or farming tenant, the shooting rights holder may install additional gates or stiles for their purposes, and everyone will be happy. What they don't have a right to do is damage the property - which includes cutting fences or climbing over them. If that's the way they behave, then they can feck right off until the situation is properly resolved. Or expect their shooting activities to be severly disrupted. It's really not difficult to run a slurry spreader through the middle of a drive on a shoot day.....

 

[Dunwaters]

People who have a right to enter land to shoot or fish should use gates and stiles, just like everyone else. With the agreement of the landowner and / or farming tenant, the shooting rights holder may install additional gates or stiles for their purposes, and everyone will be happy. What they don't have a right to do is damage the property - which includes cutting fences or climbing over them. If that's the way they behave, then they can feck right off until the situation is properly resolved. Or expect their shooting activities to be severly disrupted. It's really not difficult to run a slurry spreader through the middle of a drive on a shoot day.....

It’s actually not that simple, technically if I own the shooting or fishing rights, not only do I have the right of access but I also have the right to object to, and possibly prevent you from developing your land in a way which would erode or diminish the value of my sporting assets. For example if I have the shooting rights over an area of moorland and you want to plant a forest, I can prevent you or demand compensation for my lost grouse shooting.
Taking your own example, if I was exercising my sporting rights over your land and you disrupted my activities, I would be entitled to seek compensation.
Jeeezz man, I’m a staunch Republican and here I am explaining Royal gifts and charters to someone living on the big island?
Let’s both agree to continue to be reasonable men and sort this out betwixt ourselves.
It gets really expensive once the wigs are involved, but the precedents are there and they generally don’t favour the landowner or tenant over the owner of the profits.
We’re actually very lucky that the aristocracy generally don’t insist on exercising their rights

 

[willowbank]

Not if he was on a right of way or had a right of access.
Just because you own the land, you can’t do what you like, you’re not allowed to impede access where other rights prevail and access to exercise rights to shoot or fish are very senior rights.
Back in those days we tensioned fences with a claw hammer. Or a tractor.
Different times, it was 50 years ago and there was a lot more laissez faire on both sides.
For example, if you tried to climb a gate hinged with baler twine on a diagonal and it tipped and threw you into the clag you took it as one of the hazards of a day out in the country, you didn’t dial a lawyer.

Many of todays so called ramblers don’t know the correct way to climb a 5 bar gate....

WB

 

[VSS]

It’s actually not that simple, technically if I own the shooting or fishing rights, not only do I have the right of access but I also have the right to object to, and possibly prevent you from developing your land in a way which would erode or diminish the value of my sporting assets. For example if I have the shooting rights over an area of moorland and you want to plant a forest, I can prevent you or demand compensation for my lost grouse shooting.
Taking your own example, if I was exercising my sporting rights over your land and you disrupted my activities, I would be entitled to seek compensation.

That cuts both ways. The rights are concurrent. So, providing I don't actually prevent the shooting from taking place, I can't be prevented from spreading slurry on that field on that day at that time. Etc.
Believe me, I know all about this. Probably more than most. I have fought the battle, and won.

 

[VSS]

.
We’re actually very lucky that the aristocracy generally don’t insist on exercising their rights

Unfortunately, in many cases the aristocracy have sold out the rights to commercial companies. The aristocracy were a pleasure to deal with in comparison.

 

[Lloyd90]

Not really - if the dog jumps into the field and then sits waiting for you to climb over it’s not going to upset anyone. Likewise if you climb over and then call the dog it’s not going to upset anyone - assuming that the dog is safe around livestock, which there is no excuse for it not to be.

Tell the dog to sit / lie down.

Climb over the obstacle yourself.

Once safely over the obstacle, call the dogs over 1 at a time, where you can place them back on the lead as they jump and land in front of you.

Sorted.

 

[Dunwaters]

Many of todays so called ramblers don’t know the correct way to climb a 5 bar gate....

WB

Many old fashioned farmers didn’t know how to hang one.

 

[Dunwaters]

That cuts both ways. The rights are concurrent. So, providing I don't actually prevent the shooting from taking place, I can't be prevented from spreading slurry on that field on that day at that time. Etc.
Believe me, I know all about this. Probably more than most. I have fought the battle, and won.

Unfortunately, in many cases the aristocracy have sold out the rights to commercial companies. The aristocracy were a pleasure to deal with in comparison.

The guy with the snips was a titled aristocrat and one of the nicest people you could wish to meet, we never had a problem as a result of his behaviour, not even when he accidentally set fire to half a mountain while chasing grouse.

 

[ContinShots]

It's very interesting reading about the situation in England. In Scotland, land access rights apply to people, but they also apply to horses and push bikes, meaning there has to be provision for horses and bikes to be able to cross fences and stiles such as this really wouldn't be compliant these days. There are still specific rights or way, separate to the general right to responsible access, and these all have different specific requirements on law depending on how they came to be, so some may historically have been focused on foot traffic, others pony etc. and you'd only really know by digging back through the annuals of time to see what the law is specific to that right of way. I suspect this may be similar to England?