It’s a charity concern, £ does change hands so possibly could fall into the commercial. Fook knows, it’s a grey area to me.Sticking my head above the parapet - I'd say no -, it's not commercial therefore you have no property being damaged as per section 7, 3, A (thanks @VSS ). I would expect the wording would have to be for protecting natural heritage
Section 7 is pretty clear. No grey areas there.It’s a charity concern, £ does change hands so possibly could fall into the commercial. Fook knows, it’s a grey area to me.
I would agree but it’s all legal guff which I don’t fully understandLink to section 7, below:
You also need to read subsection (1) of section 2 to get the context.Deer Act 1991
An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to deer with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.www.legislation.gov.uk
(Not subsection (2) of section 2. That relates only to farmed deer).
Link to section 2, below:
Deer Act 1991
An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to deer with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.www.legislation.gov.uk
Ok, to put it in English:I would agree but it’s all legal guff which I don’t fully understand![]()
![]()
Nope, the key thing in this instance is that the trees are not for harvesting therefore not a crop so there is no damage to the harvest, it's just natural processes going on.Ok, to put it in English:
If the woodland is enclosed,
If damage is being caused by deer,
If the deer you intend to shoot are the deer which are causing the damage,
If shooting the deer would prevent further damage,
If you have the right to shoot deer on that land,
Crack on.
I wouldn't have to explain this to a judge!! but from my point of view is I would happy for you to make some case law to clarify the situation!It’s a charity concern, £ does change hands so possibly could fall into the commercial. Fook knows, it’s a grey area to me.
There is nothing in section 7 that implies that it has to be commercial woodland.Nope, the key thing in this instance is that the trees are not for harvesting therefore not a crop so there is no damage to the harvest, it's just natural processes going on.
Top banana. Cheers. What if the fence is porous in places regarding deer ingress as I think is the case. Is it still classified as an enclosure? Presumably repairs would need to be carried out prior to in order to comply or is it still classed as a deer fence if not? Your input is much appreciated. CheersOk, to put it in English:
If the woodland is enclosed,
If damage is being caused by deer,
If the deer you intend to shoot are the deer which are causing the damage,
If shooting the deer would prevent further damage,
If you have the right to shoot deer on that land,
Crack on.
I believe it would still classify as enclosed.Top banana. Cheers. What if the fence is porous in places regarding deer ingress as I think is the case. Is it still classified as an enclosure? Presumably repairs would need to be carried out prior to in order to comply or is it still classed as a deer fence if not? Your input is much appreciated. Cheers
On a different tangent, if its deer fenced, how are they getting in?
Cheers, much appreciated.The OP describes the existing deer fence as "porous"
But, also on a tangent, for it to classify as "enclosed" as per the law, it need not be deer fenced. An ordinary stock fence, or even a drystone wall, would suffice.