Hypothetical question regarding runners

I posted the piece of legislation that covers this in England, back in post #8, which nobody appears to have noticed - Deer Act 1991, Section 1 (3) (a).

Here is the appropriate wording:

Offences relating to deer

1 Poaching of deer.

(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person enters any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person while on any land—
(a)intentionally takes, kills or injures, or attempts to take, kill or injure, any deer,
(b)searches for or pursues any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, or
(c)removes the carcase of any deer,
without the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or other lawful authority, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above by reason of anything done in the belief that—
(a)he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it; or
(b)he has other lawful authority to do it.
(4)If any authorised person suspects with reasonable cause that any person is committing or has committed an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above on any land, he may require that person—
(a)to give his full name and address; and
(b)to quit that land forthwith;
and any person who fails to comply with a requirement under this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.
(5)In subsection (4) above “authorised personâ€, in relation to any land, means the owner or occupier of the land or any person authorised by the owner or occupier, and includes any person having the right to take or kill deer on the land.


And here is the link to the full Act:


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/54



 
No... He's not advocating breaking the law... either in Scotland or south of the border.
QUOTE]

Tamus- I am fully aware of the Deer Scotland Act 1996 and based on Widowson's comments in his OP where he stated it was not legal based on his opinion then YES he was advocating breaking the law.

The fact that Section 25 of the Act confers a right in a certain situation is something different.

I contacted Mr Hingston regarding our previous discussion on the ownership of a carcase taken under 25 from ground where you do not have rights to shoot and he kindly responded on the same vein as the letter sent to you. However, I queried how one can have a defence under Section 25 of the said Act to shoot the deer, but then you have to apply Common Law to recover the carcase. As you are no doubt aware Statute takes precedent over Common Law and Section 17(2) subject to Section 25 merely states that you do not commit an offence under the Act by removing it, it does not say that you can! Whereas Section 17 confers the right to 'take' on the person who has the shooting rights on that ground. I await his response.

The other interesting scenario is that you shoot a deer on your own ground and it walks onto an adjacent ground within full view of you, you wait the obligatory 10 mins and see that it is dead as there is no movement! Are you protected under Section 25 to enter and prevent suffering? Not if the deer is dead as your action is not to prevent suffering!

As someone else has said, if you use the Act for one action (Shooting) and then the Common law for another action (removal of carcase) on ground where you do not have rights, then it is essentially a 'Get out Jail card'! Can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
No... He's not advocating breaking the law... either in Scotland or south of the border.
QUOTE]
Tamus- I am fully aware of the Deer Scotland Act 1996 and based on Widowson's comments in his OP where he stated it was not legal based on his opinion then YES he was advocating breaking the law.

The fact that Section 25 of the Act confers a right in a ceratin situation is something different.

I contacted Mr Hingston regarding our previous discussion on the ownership of a carcase taken under 25 from ground where you do not have rights to shoot and he kindly responded on the same vein as the letter sent to you. However, I queried how one can have a defence under Section 25 of the said Act to shoot the deer, but then you have to apply Common Law to recover the carcase. As you are no doubt aware Statute takes precedent over Common Law and Section 17(2) subject to Section 25 merely states that you do not commit an offence under the Act by removing it, it does not say that you can! Whereas Section 17 confers the right to 'take' on the person who has the shooting rights on that ground. I await his response.

The other interesting scenario is that you shoot a deer on your own ground and it walks onto an adjacent ground within full view of you, you wait the obligatory 10 mins and see that it is dead as there is no movement! Are you protected under Section 25 to enter and prevent suffering? Not if the deer is dead as your action is not to prevent suffering!

As someone else has said, if you use the Act for one action (Shooting) and then the Common law for another action (removal of carcase) on ground where you do not have rights, then it is essentially a 'Get out Jail card'! Can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE


Your logic is fallible. I will not argue against it.

Mr Hingston will put you straight, but it will only be useful to you if you can understand what you are being told.

What I will say is... Just becasue a man doesn't know for sure that what he is doing is lawful, as well as morally right, that does NOT make it unlawful. Being both morally right and lawful is what we aim for here I think and I've not seen anyone say anything that leads me to suspect they've not done both.
 
You won't get blanket permission from many because it can encourage flexible boundaries. If it was me you were asking I would request that should it occur you informed me on a case by case basis and a decision on what action to take would be made by me. That action may include permission to go and get it, but that way everyone is crystal about their position and encourages sensible shooting.

I can just imagine it will be very easy to get hold of a FC employee who is empowered to make these decisions at 4am or10pm in a weekend ;)
 
to prevent suffering would give you a defence "in court"
you can break most if not all laws to save life (human) if that is your "defence in court"
but if the cps take it to court it can go either way
 
to prevent suffering would give you a defence "in court"
you can break most if not all laws to save life (human) if that is your "defence in court"
but if the cps take it to court it can go either way

Lister,
in most laws, by saving life, you don't complete the definition of that particular piece of legislation, therefore you wouldn't end up in court, as you haven't broken the law. Generaly, the cps decide to prosecute if there's a realistic prospect of conviction or it's in the public interest.
fatty.
 
hi fatty
who decides what is in the public interest

Honestly,
I believe the press, initially, as they control the politicians,( who would sell their granny for a vote, just look at the previous knee jerk legislation changes) and ultimately, us voters. It depends whether we air our views with a vote, as a result of which rag we decide to buy into, or the political partys' lies, in order to gain our vote. Just my cynical view,
Fatty!
 
:rofl: So you advocate breaking the law, but are concerned that stalkers are getting bad press- contradiction in terms?

I have at no time advocated that anyone act in an illegal manner, I know what I do I've been at this for some 37 years ,I'm not going to change my mind or habits now ,I do what I do for the reasons I stated in the former post .

Theres no contradiction in any terms stalkers will always get bad press people think (badly educated) that those wee roe deer haven't done anyone or thing any harm ,so why are you out there killing them, then there is the poacher who gets disturbed and walks away ,or in Glasgow the deer slaughtered in the necropolis and left over the grave stones ,and the deer left hanging in the trees in Clydebank golf course ,so no double standreds and no contradiction ,fo me it is right to work in a humain fashion .

I would never like to think any stalker worth his salt would walk away, if a beast jumped a march fence after it had been shot ,I'd go as far to say with someone who was to carry out such practices like that, should give the game up, as they have absolutely no interest or care for the deer that they are managing , I say managing because that's what we're all meant to be doing .


The day the police knock the door and say I was poaching by carrying out such humain practices I'll gladly give them the guns and won't contest that fact .
 
As a mere beginner compared to a lot of you guys so take what I say with a pinch of salt, some of the ground I shoot on the neighbours are South African and only come here for a month or so a year and are very hard to get hold of but if a deer was to run in to there land I would most certainly go and get it if it just hopped a fence or just few yards over it I would leave my rifle the other side so as to not commit armed trespass etc and retrieve it luckily the most I've ever had a deer run was probably 20yds but that's not to say the next one I shoot won't run 200yds, I just don't like the thought of leaving a wounded/dying deer more for ethical reasons than anything else you owe it to the animal not to let it suffer and that's what it is more about than just retrieving a carcass IMO........

On the other hand as has been said I can just imagine the antis coming along and finding dead and rotting carcasses dotted haphazardly all over the countryside how long before they all would make it in to the national press with photographs of said deer and give us an even worse name than we already have in the eyes of some of the antis/public not long I wouldn't have thought, so there are more than just one reason to try and do what you can to retrieve a deer and although you are breaking the law in doing so I'm willing to do so for the sake of the deer and the image of my/our sport, I'm not advocating you should break the law just saying what I would do if it was to happen to me which fingers crossed it doesn't........
 
As far as i am aware from a legal point if the Deer is shot on your permission and drops on other land then it belongs to that land owner its not yours to retrieve.That's it plain and simple. no point getting all ethical about it but i must say it is a dilemma. no different to the rules of engagement in the military some times it just don't make sense,
 
As far as i am aware from a legal point if the Deer is shot on your permission and drops on other land then it belongs to that land owner its not yours to retrieve.That's it plain and simple. no point getting all ethical about it but i must say it is a dilemma. no different to the rules of engagement in the military some times it just don't make sense,

Don't you know that there's more to it than that?
 
Of course there is but that,s the rules. trust me when you bend or break the rules it leads to bad habits, and i am not speaking from the highest heights if you know what i mean. But its like someone saying "well its only two days until you can shoot Hinds if you see one this evening drop it".
I beleive what makes a good stalker is a person who judges everything prior to the shot, its a Chane of events that one must preempt... identification, rage,shot placement, what will the Deer do is this shot is it safe wheres the bullet going to go, how will i get the Deer back I.E if the Deer is near a boundary make sure it drops where it stands there are shot for this purpose, Heart lung normally on a red 20 yards before they drop under the ear its dead before its on the ground.
I know most of us do that and sometimes it does go wrong but that no reason to do more wrong that's all i am saying.
Each man must do what he does at that time. i for one don't have that issue about boundaries where i shoot.... it must be difficult
 
alexs nice post and you say you dont have this issue thats great but this was a hypothtical question so what would you do if your deer did cross a boundary and die which happens all to often.
Simple would you leave it to suffer or rot or would you go and get it and use it the way it should be.
 
alexs nice post and you say you dont have this issue thats great but this was a hypothtical question so what would you do if your deer did cross a boundary and die which happens all to often.
Simple would you leave it to suffer or rot or would you go and get it and use it the way it should be.

Davie once a deer is dead it cannot suffer,
If you shot a deer and it runs over the boundary and drops dead would you lift it or leave it ?
 
I have at no time advocated that anyone act in an illegal manner, I know what I do I've been at this for some 37 years ,I'm not going to change my mind or habits now ,I do what I do for the reasons I stated in the former post .

Theres no contradiction in any terms stalkers will always get bad press people think (badly educated) that those wee roe deer haven't done anyone or thing any harm ,so why are you out there killing them, then there is the poacher who gets disturbed and walks away ,or in Glasgow the deer slaughtered in the necropolis and left over the grave stones ,and the deer left hanging in the trees in Clydebank golf course ,so no double standreds and no contradiction ,fo me it is right to work in a humain fashion .

I would never like to think any stalker worth his salt would walk away, if a beast jumped a march fence after it had been shot ,I'd go as far to say with someone who was to carry out such practices like that, should give the game up, as they have absolutely no interest or care for the deer that they are managing , I say managing because that's what we're all meant to be doing .


The day the police knock the door and say I was poaching by carrying out such humain practices I'll gladly give them the guns and won't contest that fact .




I can see both sides of the debate . . . . but theres a lot to be said for a large dollop of common sense.
 
If my deer droped over the boundary this has happend many times and was infact dead when i got to it i would remove it if i could not get hold of the other landowner involved. Leaving an animal to rot on the hoof is not acceptable in my book nor is the chance that some person might find the deer upsetting them enough to bring problems for deer stalkers or what they do.
Now Mark what would you do ?
 
I'm curious has there been a test case where section 25 was put foreward as a defence Tamus ?

as you know the proof's in the pudding !..............

To be honest ... I don't know.

But... as far as I can tell, when section 25 is used correctly, how could there be anything to defend? ... no charges could follow let alone there be a court case.
 
Back
Top