Access

[lanner]

Obviously I’m taking advice from my forestry managers, recently been asked to manage another forest in Scotland by the forestry and land owner, when I went to view with no firearm the farm got very irrate, wasn’t till after I found out his son has been stalking with no lease to do so, presumed he had permission! To try and help I even offered the son to assist me half the cost etc. he has declined saying doesn’t want to pay but he’d still like to stalk, very privileged he thinks, only problem is to gain access I have to drive down the farm track and go down side of there farm, the side of the farmhouse, in the sons response he asks how are you going to gain access and extract from the forest, not being a rocket scientist but I’m thinking they are going to block all access in out, like I said I’m seeking advice thoughts please

 

[VSS]

You need to know exactly what is stated in the access agreement between forest and farm, in order to know precisely where you stand on this.

 

[muddy42]

If the forestry is professionally managed they will know exactly where they stand on access and road repair obligations. Forestry is worthless without the ability to get people in and timber out in an totally unrestricted way.

 

[lanner]

Thanks both on waiting on reply from forestry, last thing I want is to be constantly looking over my shoulder I’ve tried to be fair

 

[mike308]

I walked away from a lease for the same reason.I had to drive through the farm to access the forestry. They changed the padlock on the gate so I couldn't get in. The forestry company got them to put the old padlock back, then the next thing was to leave a tractor on the access track after I had gone into the forest then go out so I couldn't get out. After that I gave up the lease, not worth the hassle.

 

[countrryboy]

If the forestry is professionally managed they will know exactly where they stand on access and road repair obligations. Forestry is worthless without the ability to get people in and timber out in an totally unrestricted way.

This is how it should be.

But u would be amazed how often it is not the case, really all depends on how good the lawyers were at the time ground was sold and planted.
But even with iron clad access agreements the farmer could make ur life miserable if he wanted too.

1 local small estate, sadly no longer, everything been sold to pay the bills, made a right pigs ear, sold of fields and woods at all different times to different owners and very little or no real thought for extracting the timber and ground conditions.
Often the timber is extracted accross the wettest fields ( in a wet heavy clay area anywahy) as they were last to be sold off and they 'forgot' to put access clauses in the sensible fields

 

[Cyres]

So effectively the son admitted to poaching! Big bag of worms if you proceed.
D

 

[long_range_rob]

“I thought I had permission “

Written consent required by law.

 

[VSS]

Written consent required by law.

No it's not.

 

[The Singing Stalker]

“I thought I had permission “

Written consent required by law.

You can have verbal permission, however, that is a, he said, she said. So difficult to prove/disprove.

 

[andyk]

There are also different levels of written permission.

Gold standard is going to be a written and signed paper document saying you can shoot there but a WhatsApp message telling you to do so is also ‘written’.

 

[muddy42]

This is how it should be.

But u would be amazed how often it is not the case, really all depends on how good the lawyers were at the time ground was sold and planted.
But even with iron clad access agreements the farmer could make ur life miserable if he wanted too.

1 local small estate, sadly no longer, everything been sold to pay the bills, made a right pigs ear, sold of fields and woods at all different times to different owners and very little or no real thought for extracting the timber and ground conditions.
Often the timber is extracted accross the wettest fields ( in a wet heavy clay area anywahy) as they were last to be sold off and they 'forgot' to put access clauses in the sensible fields

I agree that can happen and poorly planned sales like what you mention would destroy value and the advisers could be sued. But I did say "professionally managed". Commercial forestry is now big business and if you are going to invest in and grow timber eventually worth millions, you need to be damn sure you can extract it with no constraints.

 

[Rake Aboot]

The Forestry will have access agreed
You are an agent of the forestry.

He can’t do anything about it as long as the forestry have not been stupid and omitted any access grants ( which I doubt very much)

 

[slider]

This is how it should be.

But u would be amazed how often it is not the case, really all depends on how good the lawyers were at the time ground was sold and planted.
But even with iron clad access agreements the farmer could make ur life miserable if he wanted too.

1 local small estate, sadly no longer, everything been sold to pay the bills, made a right pigs ear, sold of fields and woods at all different times to different owners and very little or no real thought for extracting the timber and ground conditions.
Often the timber is extracted accross the wettest fields ( in a wet heavy clay area anywahy) as they were last to be sold off and they 'forgot' to put access clauses in the sensible fields

Yeah, dealt with some case when I worked with FLS where the only suitable access for heavy vehicles hadn't been used for many year and had been lost by negative prescription.
Rangers had been taking access by a secondary route but that was bo use for wagons.

 

[lanner]

Thanks for the reply’s, forestry have been in touch along with owner and asked if f id like the forest at the back too, this has access into said forest from different way, also new road going in next year bypassing the farm, every cloud so they say

 

[Tim.243]

Thanks for the reply’s, forestry have been in touch along with owner and asked if f id like the forest at the back too, this has access into said forest from different way, also new road going in next year bypassing the farm, every cloud so they say

I had this with access to the marsh as the shoot gator went every day and chewed up the track and we go the blame, so I found a closer spot and walked down the public footpath.. The land got sold and the shoot had to leave but we still have the marsh

Well done you.

 

[Yorkie]

We had a similar situation on a lease we had. Only guns authorised to be on land were us. We knew the farmer next to our lease was going in with his gun as we copped him on a wildlife camera.

We decided to just let it go, as the possible grief could have been more than it was worth if he decided to be awkward about it. Things like trashing our caravan, you lads know the type of thing.

We did let the Forestry manager know and he was ok with it, just pointless making an enemy of someone who lives there 24/7/365. We coexisted quite happily.

I do not think he hit the Deer hard, just maybe one occasionally for his Freezer. He did shoot Foxes though. We found carcases dotted about.

 

[ContinShots]

The situation in Scotland can be different to the rest of the UK due to our land access laws. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act allows responsible access (by foot, bike, horse etc) over most land AND it's not just for recreation, it specifically says in the Act that commercial access is also permissible if doing the same would be permissible for recreation. And if you're taking access in accordance with the Land Reform Act, you're not trespassing, so the armed trespass section of the Firearms Act may not apply. Crossing land by foot to access land over which you have permission to shoot can be legal under access rights, according to an FEO I spoke to recently about it, but it is a touchy area (particularly if you don't have a good relationship with the owner of the land you're crossing). If you need to access with vehicles and can't get by with accessing on foot or with a pony, then that's a different matter. Maybe speak with your local firearms licensing office to gauge their opinion and also one of the shooting organisations that operate up here?

 

[Rafter]

The situation in Scotland can be different to the rest of the UK due to our land access laws. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act allows responsible access (by foot, bike, horse etc) over most land AND it's not just for recreation, it specifically says in the Act that commercial access is also permissible if doing the same would be permissible for recreation. And if you're taking access in accordance with the Land Reform Act, you're not trespassing, so the armed trespass section of the Firearms Act may not apply. Crossing land by foot to access land over which you have permission to shoot can be legal under access rights, according to an FEO I spoke to recently about it, but it is a touchy area (particularly if you don't have a good relationship with the owner of the land you're crossing). If you need to access with vehicles and can't get by with accessing on foot or with a pony, then that's a different matter. Maybe speak with your local firearms licensing office to gauge their opinion and also one of the shooting organisations that operate up here?

Seriously? What is the point of ownership of land? That's a hard case set of laws.

 

[ContinShots]

Seriously? What is the point of ownership of land? That's a hard case set of laws.

I don't have a problem with it. I guess it's a different mindset and culture. I grew up in a country with access rights and it's just how it is. And there's plenty of point to ownership of land. We're only taking about others taking access over land on foot or horse, anything else, including shooting, would require permission.