Common Law "right to hunt?"

[flytie]

Been there, done that. Nothing about a "Right to Hunt". But interesting though.

More reading for the interested; http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/blackstone-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1

Simon

 

[ELMER FUDD]

Book of common law if you want to read through it.

The common law

 

[palmer_mike]

Thisight be a bit like the search for the 'loch ness monster'.....

in in that a couple of people have said it exists, but can not prove it. You have searched yourself but can not find any proof. On the other hand it can not conclusively be proven not to exist.

In my opinion there comes a time when an absence of proof that the right to hunt (or Loch Ness monster) exists should lead to the conclusion the it does not exist.

after consulting with my wife (a solicitor of any years experience) she was of the opinion that in cases like this, in order to assert any right to hunt it would be necessary to prove the right exists, legally speaking, an absence of proof is equal to proving it doesn't exist.

 

[Andy7mm]

I may have the wrong end of this but, if you have the right to kill any animals (that are not protected by other legislation) on land you own or have have the right to shoot. Then is that no the same as a right to hunt on said land?

Unless the law defines it differently a right to kill/take is the same as a right to hunt?

Andy7mm

 

[oager]

The best I can do is anecdote, but is is from a couple of local solicitors who hunt and shoot, and professionally tend to represent the countryside community. They are almost certain that no such 'right to hunt' (meaning stalk, fish, shoot, hunt etc etc) exists or did exist unless it was attached to land ownership. One of them recalls looking for information on this many years ago related to a case they were preparing, and couldn't find anything.

 

[old man]

Apologies, I had assumed that said wild animals had been reduced into possession as is necessary to become property?

 

[flytie]

Book of common law if you want to read through it.

The common law

Bloody good link, thank you!

S.

Apologies, I had assumed that said wild animals had been reduced into possession as is necessary to become property?

OM (K), Wild animals only become property when they are dead. The translation of a penned pheasant (property) to a wild bird when released is only one of many interesting and complex features of the law.

As was written earlier by one of our compatriots, if you shoot a pheasant (or deer) on (over) your land (in England & Wales) but it ends up on a neighbours land, then the animal/bird belongs to the person who owns the land (or has the sporting rights on said land) that the animal expires on.

Perhaps Mr Stoddart, the assisantant director of SAC's, would like to point out the relavant law to me as I have politely asked of him on more than one occasion. I ask this as I can find no reference to it at all.

Simon

 

[old man]

Simon, as you might have reasoned, my use of "reduced into possession" comes from Charlie & John's book DEER: Law & Liabilities.

Ken

Maybe Theft Act 1968 sec 4 (4)

 

[RoyalTW]

As a recently retired solicitor, Enfieldspares has got it right.

On formerly ancient common land -i.e not in any single person's ownership, those with rights in common had the right to e.g graze animals and take rabbits and wildfowl etc, so a common right holder would have had a right in effect to hunt on that land. The few remaining commons ( many were taken into private ownership by wealthy landowners via Enclosure Acts up to and including the 19th century - English equivalent of the Highland Clearances but we English don't seem to have a grudge about it still!) have been registered in the last few decades under the Commons Registration Act - quite a few in East Anglia remain where registered rights holders use the right to wildfowl. This might charitably be the cause of the apparent confusion - nothing as such to do with the "common law" as lawyers know it, but perhaps everything to do with rights of commoners over their common land.

 

[The Bongo]

As a recently retired solicitor, Enfieldspares has got it right.

On formerly ancient common land -i.e not in any single person's ownership, those with rights in common had the right to e.g graze animals and take rabbits and wildfowl etc, so a common right holder would have had a right in effect to hunt on that land. The few remaining commons ( many were taken into private ownership by wealthy landowners via Enclosure Acts up to and including the 19th century - English equivalent of the Highland Clearances but we English don't seem to have a grudge about it still!) have been registered in the last few decades under the Commons Registration Act - quite a few in East Anglia remain where registered rights holders use the right to wildfowl. This might charitably be the cause of the apparent confusion - nothing as such to do with the "common law" as lawyers know it, but perhaps everything to do with rights of commoners over their common land.

Harry Hopkins - The Long Affray covers this well.

What is sad is that in Nordic countries with common land/rights still in abundance, hunting is almost universally popular as it is not exclusive. Given that we evolved our high eye/hand motor skills, language and apparently settled communities due to hunting, I think that it should be a right and one we insist on.

 

[flytie]

As a recently retired solicitor, Enfieldspares has got it right.

On formerly ancient common land -i.e not in any single person's ownership, those with rights in common had the right to e.g graze animals and take rabbits and wildfowl etc, so a common right holder would have had a right in effect to hunt on that land. The few remaining commons ( many were taken into private ownership by wealthy landowners via Enclosure Acts up to and including the 19th century - English equivalent of the Highland Clearances but we English don't seem to have a grudge about it still!) have been registered in the last few decades under the Commons Registration Act - quite a few in East Anglia remain where registered rights holders use the right to wildfowl. This might charitably be the cause of the apparent confusion - nothing as such to do with the "common law" as lawyers know it, but perhaps everything to do with rights of commoners over their common land.

RTW, From my reading of Blackstone, and I will try and find the appropriate passage, the right to Hunt, Take or Kill animals on common land resided with the Lord of the Manor (LOTM), unless said right was ceded to the commoners by the LOTM. But I admit that I am coming at this whole thing from knowing nothing about the laws involved, just what I am finding out by reading up on the matter.

I am interested in this subject because people are bandying words about a "right to hunt", but when I ask for a link to the laws involved I receive no reply.

I would love there to be such a right, so we could use it as being part of the good cause to own and use a firearm, giving the politicians even more trouble to curtail shooting would be wonderful.

Simon

PS: I have just been reading Blackstone and have found the law on "Commons without Stint," so you could well be right about the rights on some commons although other rights apply on others.

S.