Landowner shooting on tenanted land
- Thread starter Mungo
- Start date
I have suspicions on this front!
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
Possibly depends where u are in scotland.
I know off quite a few places like that.
Paticularly 1 large estate, that used to be a lot larger, that still holds a lot of the shooting rights around its boundries.
A few diy pheasant syndicates would pay the big estate their rent yet much off there ground was on a different estate.
like with shooting/stalking leases pretty much need to see the agreements/leases to see the exact fine print for that specific case.
I would say the tennants tennancy could be on a shoogily peg if he carries on like this, never going to end very well when u upset the land owner.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
Without knowing exactly what the tennant's issue is with shooting I wouldn't want to get involved.
kieran222
Well-Known Member
I definitely would leave this to the land owner and tenant to sort out. Even if you are legally entitled to shoot on the land the tenant is likely to know how difficult he can make things for you by reporting you for various things such as armed trespass, etc. The police in this situation are likely to err on the side of caution and side with the tenant which could result in firearms being confiscated, etc. Whether you are in the right or not it's likely to be a case of guilty until proven innocent when it comes to firearms.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
It very much depends on the terms of the tenancy, but usually the Land owner retains the sporting rights, and thus can give permission for others to shoot. Tenant farmers have the rights to use the land to grow crops and raise livestock. It very depends on the terms of the tenancy. In some its a perpetual lease passing from generation to generation and tenant pays rent, and farmer gets on with it. Farmer will own the above ground improvements so things like fencing etc are paid for and belong to the farmer.
In other tenancies its more of a partnership, where landowner and farmer work together - so I know an Oxbridge owned farm where the college has put a lot of money in putting in farm dam, irrigation and buildings and for the last 20 plus years its been a highly productive farm growing potatoes abd veg. Macains ovn chips use it in the advertising.
Then is the contract farm model where farmers contract farm land from landowners on a season / crop by crop basis. A lot of tge East Lothian veg, turf and seed potatoe farmers work on this basis. It allows them to grow crops in clean land. Contracts vary from a fixed rent to shared profits.
But usually as regards deer, its the landowner dictates things. Tenants do have the rights to control deer, but only if they are causing significant damage. Emphasis on “significant”.
Plenty of tenants and landowners are in constant state of dispute. Always have been always will be.
Neither are notifiable but land occupiers have legal obligations for both.
For rabbits are covered by the ruled of good husbandry under the Agriculture act.
Ragwort is covered by the Weeds Act 1959, which places an obligation on the occupier to prevent the spread of injurious weeds. Note it is not an offense to have the listed injurious weeds on the land but it is an offense to allow them to spread onto land occupied by others
MAH
Well-Known Member
I agree..
@Mungo .
The earlier replies focus on the legal position. Whilst clearly important, is that an issue for you want to solve?
I'd be asking myself do I want to invite a pile of hassle.
It would appear there is some I'll feeling between the Tennant and Land owner.
You might end up being played by both.
e.g. you go on to the enclave via the track, the police are called, (armed trespass*), it ends up in court.
You fund your defence, you win, great, the LO has solved his problem.
On the up side, you could ask the landowner to come with you, and see what the reaction is.
If hthe paperwork looks good, and I did go I'd leave my rifle at home for the 1st few recce trips and leave a sign in my truck, "shooting in progress "
Test the water, before you jump in.
M
* it might seem farfetched, but take a look at the thread "armed response "
Last edited:
So the issue is complicated by the fact that both parties are large institutions, not individuals. And I am an employee of the landowner, so technically am being tasked to do my job (or at least, it is part of my workload allocation, while not being my core role).
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Given this is the case, I think it really needs the landowner to advise the tenant of the fact you, as the servant (ie employee) of the landowner is under their instruction.
The challenge with institutional parties is that it is often very unclear who actually makes decisions and instructions. So does @Mungo line manager have the clear authority on the part of the institution to go and manage the deer, especially as I would expect there to be conflicting opinions within the institution. And equally there will be those within the tenant organisation that opposes deer control activities.
I think this is definitely a tin helmet and sandbags type situation, where keeping head down and out of the way whilst the politics are sorted.
I would particularly keep out of the firing as its your FAC etc that will be at risk if police etc get involved. Different matter if you employer was the crown and you were a crown servant.
Last edited:
I've just had something along these lines.
Just getting started out stalking and had been given permission by a family friend to stalk on around 12 acres (not much but got to start somewhere and has three species of deer on based on my trail cams) of their land, part of which is farmed by a local farmer but not stalked on as far as the owner knew. Gave me permission, let the farmer know. Farmer has responded to say they have someone else stalking the rest of the land they farm and only want that person doing the stalking. Landowner has accepted this so I've lost the stalking and this other chap known to the farmer has gained 12 acres including the wild bit the farmer used to have nothing to do with but was a little patch of overgrown paradise for me.
From delighted to gutted in 48h.
Just getting started out stalking and had been given permission by a family friend to stalk on around 12 acres (not much but got to start somewhere and has three species of deer on based on my trail cams) of their land, part of which is farmed by a local farmer but not stalked on as far as the owner knew. Gave me permission, let the farmer know. Farmer has responded to say they have someone else stalking the rest of the land they farm and only want that person doing the stalking. Landowner has accepted this so I've lost the stalking and this other chap known to the farmer has gained 12 acres including the wild bit the farmer used to have nothing to do with but was a little patch of overgrown paradise for me.
From delighted to gutted in 48h.
But if the local farmer is paying good rent for a small and awkward plot of land then the small-scale landowner won't want to upset that balance.
It would be a very different story if the landowner had 5,000 acres and the tenant farmed was renting a mere 300 or so.
Maybe, but sadly I'm not the landowner and it doesn't feel right to cause issues between a friend and their tenant even though I would like the permission.
I can't comment on the rent as I even don't know if there is any for the arrangement they have. The land comprises one field of 10 or so acres which the farmer farms and then a smaller overgrown field which he's had nothing to do with for several years although I've had access for other purposes- I'll still have access for that although it now seems I won't be the only one. To be honest, I'm not sure how relevant the amount of land is, it's the principle itself that bugs me. However, as above, I don't want to cause a friend problems so am keeping my own counsel on it and hoping something else comes up.
I'm guessing, in your case, that the landowner is a smallholder or someone who has bought a little plot for amenity value, and the tenant is a much larger neighbouring farmer. A fairly common arrangement. The landowner will be glad to have the land properly managed by the farmer, and in the long term that's worth more to them than your little bit of shooting.
Seen the same scenario many times.
Similar threads
