New government deer management strategy

[shortshot]

. Pest Control and Crop Protection (The "Defence" to Close Season Laws)

• Section 7 of the Deer Act 1991: In the UK, this allows farmers to shoot deer during the closed season if it is necessary to prevent serious damage to crops or woodland.
• Conditions: The shotgun must not be smaller than 12-bore and specific large shot sizes must be used.

I speak as a tenant farmer with a landlord who reserves deer or the right to kill them from the tenant. That is a standard agreement, a farmers defence would not be agreed to but the ground game act puts the default compulsion to defend on the occupier and provides an “inalienable right “to kill ground game with the occupier.
About 40% of English farm land is tenanted.
Close season or open season currently makes no difference if the landlord regards deer as game rather than vermin.

 

[VSS]

I speak as a tenant farmer with a landlord who reserves deer or the right to kill them from the tenant. That is a standard agreement, a farmers defence would not be agreed to but the ground game act puts the default compulsion to defend on the occupier and provides an “inalienable right “to kill ground game with the occupier.
About 40% of English farm land is tenanted.
Close season or open season currently makes no difference if the landlord regards deer as game rather than vermin.

It is my understanding that, as the occupier of the land, the tenant farmer has the right to shoot deer on enclosed land where they're damaging his crops, regardless of whether the "right" to shoot deer has been reserved by the landowner or a third party.
While it might not be very good for landlord/tenant relationships, landowners are not above the law.

 

[JeffreyL]

The landlord can regard deer as whatever he likes, the legal definition is that deer are not game.

 

[slider]

Until you have to fight your corner in court at great expense.

Has this ever occurred? Who would take you to court?
DEFRA or NatureScot - i seriously doubt it.
Your landlord if you are a tenant farmer - they could try, but in any cases that have begun the landlord has always backed down before court proceedings

 

[slider]

It is my understanding that, as the occupier of the land, the tenant farmer has the right to shoot deer on enclosed land where they're damaging his crops, regardless of whether the "right" to shoot deer has been reserved by the landowner or a third party.
While it might not be very good for landlord/tenant relationships, landowners are not above the law.

That is absolutely the case , at least in Scotland. In my time as an agriculture consultant I acted for a very large landowner who want to pursue a claim against a tenant that was shooting deer (which were munching his turnips). I research this extensively and took legal advice from a highly respected specialist legal practice.
Following advice the landowners didn't pursue matters.

 

[Mickeydredd]

That is absolutely the case , at least in Scotland. In my time as an agriculture consultant I acted for a very large landowner who want to pursue a claim against a tenant that was shooting deer (which were munching his turnips). I research this extensively and took legal advice from a highly respected specialist legal practice.
Following advice the landowners didn't pursue matters.

Is there anything in law to reference this?

I have been asked by a tenant farmer to shoot Reds that come on to 3 of his fields and as a result he is unable to plant crops on the fields and manages one cut of grass from them per year.

I said that I couldn't shoot them without his landlord's authority but he has a somewhat fractious relationship with him and is additionally currently negotiating fighting against a rent increase!

 

[slider]

Is there anything in law to reference this?

I have been asked by a tenant farmer to shoot Reds that come on to 3 of his fields and as a result he is unable to plant crops on the fields and manages one cut of grass from them per year.

I said that I couldn't shoot them without his landlord's authority but he has a somewhat fractious relationship with him and is additionally currently negotiating fighting against a rent increase!

It's all in various bits of legislation. it goes so far as to state that any clause in a tenancy agreement that attempts to contract out of the tenants right to protect their crop will be deemed null and void. It's a few years since i was involved in this but I will see if I can find any notes

 

[slider]

Is there anything in law to reference this?

I have been asked by a tenant farmer to shoot Reds that come on to 3 of his fields and as a result he is unable to plant crops on the fields and manages one cut of grass from them per year.

I said that I couldn't shoot them without his landlord's authority but he has a somewhat fractious relationship with him and is additionally currently negotiating fighting against a rent increase!

Deer Act (Scotland) 1996

Section 26
please read in full but to paraphrase.

Right of occupier in respect of deer causing F1... damage to crops etc. on certain ground.​

(1)F2... it shall be lawful for a person to whom this subsection applies to take or kill, and to sell or otherwise dispose of, any deer found, as the case may be, on—

(a)arable land, improved permanent pasture (other than moorland) and land which has been regenerated so as to be able to make a significant contribution to the productivity of a holding which forms part of that agricultural land; or

(b)on enclosed woodland,

where the occupier has reasonable ground for believing that F3... damage will be caused to crops, pasture or human or animal foodstuffs on that agricultural land, or to that woodland, if the deer are not taken or killed.

(3)Nothing contained in any agreement between an occupier of agricultural land or enclosed woodland and the owner of that land shall prohibit any act made lawful by subsection (1) above.

Deer (Scotland) Act 1996

 

[homer]

That is absolutely the case , at least in Scotland. In my time as an agriculture consultant I acted for a very large landowner who want to pursue a claim against a tenant that was shooting deer (which were munching his turnips). I research this extensively and took legal advice from a highly respected specialist legal practice.
Following advice the landowners didn't pursue matters.

So what happens when theres a stalking tenant on the ground, and is using that bit of ground as part of their stalking business?
Now I do realise that some stalking tenants dont kill enough deer, but if he were to kill all the deer, he wouldn't have a business, so he needs to shoot enough to keep farmer happy but leave enough to run his business.
But, some farmers go mental even if they see 2 or 3 deer, so if farmers have the power to shoot deer on their tennanted farm, is their any point in paying for a stalking lease? Apart from the safety aspect, you've now lost all control of whats shot or not. Surely things could get a bit "messy"!

 

[JeffreyL]

Everything you need to know is in this book.

 

[slider]

So what happens when theres a stalking tenant on the ground, and is using that bit of ground as part of their stalking business?
Now I do realise that some stalking tenants dont kill enough deer, but if he were to kill all the deer, he wouldn't have a business, so he needs to shoot enough to keep farmer happy but leave enough to run his business.
But, some farmers go mental even if they see 2 or 3 deer, so if farmers have the power to shoot deer on their tennanted farm, is their any point in paying for a stalking lease? Apart from the safety aspect, you've now lost all control of whats shot or not. Surely things could get a bit "messy"!

That's when speaking to each is vital BUT the legal "occupier" is the tenant farmer and they have an absolute right to protect their crops (grass is also a crop).
See my other post quoting the relevant legislation. While this is Scottish i'm pretty sure the occupiers right is mirrored in English law.

 

[VSS]

That's when speaking to each is vital BUT the legal "occupier" is the tenant farmer and they have an absolute right to protect their crops (grass is also a crop).
See my other post quoting the relevant legislation. While this is Scottish i'm pretty sure the occupiers right is mirrored in English law.

The stalking tenant is also a legal "occupier", with concurrent rights.
It can get messy!

 

[Mickeydredd]

Deer Act (Scotland) 1996

Section 26
please read in full but to paraphrase.

Many thanks

 

[slider]

The stalking tenant is also a legal "occupier", with concurrent rights.
It can get messy!

But in terms of this legislation the tenant farmer has the right to protect crops. A shooting tenant isn't going to exercise that right so I the farming tenant is going to trump that

 

[VSS]

But in terms of this legislation the tenant farmer has the right to protect crops. A shooting tenant isn't going to exercise that right so I the farming tenant is going to trump that

Yup

 

[David Barker]

That may be a small part of the problem but I think a much larger part from what I’ve seen is competency and effort , some just can’t do the job and there’s a hell of a lot just want to go once every couple of months

I agree but i would not say competency should be the word it should be competent.

 

[Ratel]

The big problem is that there are certain landowners who harbour.large quantities of deer(particularly Fallow) on their ground. I know of two big number areas close at hand.
Both have started to cull a few but not enough to make the slightest difference.
There used to be a tort in law which worked on the basis of letting something leave your land and cause damage to neighbours. I think it was a case "Rylands versus Fletcher" and damages were obtained as it was water and caused flooding. I wonder whether this could be applied to deer when they belong one place but leave to damage elsewhere.

 

[slider]

The big problem is that there are certain landowners who harbour.large quantities of deer(particularly Fallow) on their ground. I know of two big number areas close at hand.
Both have started to cull a few but not enough to make the slightest difference.
There used to be a tort in law which worked on the basis of letting something leave your land and cause damage to neighbours. I think it was a case "Rylands versus Fletcher" and damages were obtained as it was water and caused flooding. I wonder whether this could be applied to deer when they belong one place but leave to damage elsewhere.

No, because deer are wild animals and belong to no-one. (Upon death they become the property of the owner of the land they die on)

 

[Ratel]

No, because deer are wild animals and belong to no-one. (Upon death they become the property of the owner of the land they die on)

Whilst not owned, landowners have the responsibility for the management and welfare of deer on their land. Think on that and it's conotations.

 

[slider]

Whilst not owned, landowners have the responsibility for the management and welfare of deer on their land. Think on that and it's conotations.

Do they? while they may have some degree of responsibility for deliberate acts that may negatively affect deer I seriously doubt anyone could be held to account for the management of a wild animal that just happens to be on your land. If a bird flies into the window of your house do you have a responsibility?