The madness of species re-intrductions

I think the precedent is Rylands v Fletcher. You are not allowed to do things on your land that can be a hazard to neighbours.In that case water from ponds flooded a neighbours land (If my memory serves me right) and compensation had to be paid. If pheasants are damaging crops you make a claim against the person who released them.
mmmm whatis the legal position is re releasing birds onto land where you only have the shooting rights on , i'm assuming your neighbour has the release pens etc on his land& the shoot just hold the shooting rights to your land ,
 
I agree that in the example you give that a Red Kite feeding station next to a game farm would be most inconsiderate, however if you were to state that because you have a game farm there should be no reintroductions of Red Kites at all then this would also be inconsiderate. What I am suggesting is that provided there is suitable habitat available you need to strike a balance between the two rather than have a simple permitted/forbidden option.
atb Tim
Interesting, from what I understand red kite have quite feeble talons so are a true carrion bird and would feed off weak or already dead birds. OR have folk seen them take fit and healthy ones?
 
Interesting, from what I understand red kite have quite feeble talons so are a true carrion bird and would feed off weak or already dead birds. OR have folk seen them take fit and healthy ones?


They seem to thrive on deer grallochs around Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire, and they are occasionally seen hovering in the wind in the company of Buzzards here on the Isle of Wight.

atb Tim
 
I think the precedent is Rylands v Fletcher. You are not allowed to do things on your land that can be a hazard to neighbours.In that case water from ponds flooded a neighbours land (If my memory serves me right) and compensation had to be paid. If pheasants are damaging crops you make a claim against the person who released them.

But surely once released they become "farae naturae" and cannot be treated as escaped domestic stock, nor do they belong to anybody whilst still alive.

atb Tim
 
I know of several shoots that have had to pay for damage to crops caused by gamebirds, as they are deliberately bred and released. Therefore the shoot is liable for costs.
But surely once released they become "farae naturae" and cannot be treated as escaped domestic stock, nor do they belong to anybody whilst still alive.

atb Tim
 
Yes, thanks.

Certainly been deliberate and accidental releases via falconers in the past. With more guys moving on to goshawks due to there being no rabbits to fly with their harris hawks I'd imagine the number of accidental release will continue, and indeed increase.

Cheers

Mike Try Keilder & Thetford for Gos's but also present in Wales and the Borders,all centered on FC land and in the past twenty five years. Going back to beavers and particularly Devon. Back in 1973 I went for interview and was offered a Keeper's job in South West Somerset. There were at that time beavers living in woodland ponds on the estate and the Boss was quite proud to show me. I never took the job as the house was rubbish. Hope that answers you.
 
I think in Scotland u can no longer sell land without the sporting rights

That's how it should be everywhere, I reckon - sporting rights should go with land ownership, then it's up to the landowner if he wants to lease them out or whatever.
The current situation elsewhere is archaic.
 
So, what happens now if you want to sell land which someone else has shooting rights on, and he will not relinquish them ?
 
I don't know what happens in Scotland.

Elsewhere it's quite common for land to change hands without sporting rights included in the sale, because they're already owned by a third party.
 
Apparently though, according to a previous post, shooting rights now have to go with land in Scotland. So if you wish to sell your land, but someone else own the rights from years ago, you're screwed ???
 
Apparently though, according to a previous post, shooting rights now have to go with land in Scotland. So if you wish to sell your land, but someone else own the rights from years ago, you're screwed ???
Are we sure about this? Have seen land advertised in scotland recently without the shooting rights included.
 
There must be some exceedingly rich Falconers about to deliberately release Gos's. Tongue in cheek I take it Mike. A late friend of mine in the Borders took a gos chick from a nest 22 years ago which was suffering from frounce. He reared it and flew it eventually but he certainly told me which outfit released them and where they came from. I think the clue is in my first reply.
Yes, thanks.

Certainly been deliberate and accidental releases via falconers in the past. With more guys moving on to goshawks due to there being no rabbits to fly with their harris hawks I'd imagine the number of accidental release will continue, and indeed increase.

Cheers
 
That's how it should be everywhere, I reckon - sporting rights should go with land ownership, then it's up to the landowner if he wants to lease them out or whatever.
The current situation elsewhere is archaic.

So, what happens now if you want to sell land which someone else has shooting rights on, and he will not relinquish them ?

I don't know what happens in Scotland.

Elsewhere it's quite common for land to change hands without sporting rights included in the sale, because they're already owned by a third party.

I've really started something now. :stir: It was wot i was told anyway of a fairly (hopefully) knowledgable source.

I was told that by an earl who owns a fairly considerable estate, at some point in the past his ancestors must have sold some (3 or 4 farms) that the neighbouring estate bought, long story short a tennant farmer had came out and the rumours were the farm was going up for sale, (in the end it was only the houses) and the earl said i don't think so as he still had the sporting rights and had not been notified he reckoned in scotland it has fairly recently changed that there meant to go together. Or that is how i understood it at least.
I have no idea wot will happen if different indivduals own the land/rights and 1 wants to sell and the other doesnae?
 
Back
Top