Shooting across 2 permissions

25 Sharps

Well-Known Member
#1
Interested in people's opinions on this.

I have 2 permissions that border each other, deer permission on one (A) but not on the other (B) because the owner doesn't own the sporting rights (I do rabbit control for them and they are happy that I am controlling the deer on the bordering land), if an instance arose whereby there was a deer on permission A but the only way I could get a safe shot was to shoot from permission B where do I stand legally on this?

Probably hypothetical based on the land in question as back stop is generally quite good but you never know what occasion may arise!
 
#2
I'm no expert on shooting rights however to me the logic is as follows

You have permission to shoot rabbit on permission B - therefore you are not breaking any law by either possessing a fire arm or discharging it there (unless you have a closed ticket and the land has not been cleared by the police for full bore)

You have permission to shoot deer on permission A.

Therefore by discharging your rifle in permission B but hitting a deer on permission A you have neither broken the letter nor the spirit of the law

Just my take but could be wrong
 

Markfox

Well-Known Member
#3
Work out a better way to shoot deer on permission A

if you didn't have permission B does that mean you could not shoot any deer ?
 

25 Sharps

Well-Known Member
#4
Work out a better way to shoot deer on permission A

if you didn't have permission B does that mean you could not shoot any deer ?
It would mean I would struggle at one end of permission A yes....(also if I didn't have B I never would have got A, but that's another story!)
 
Last edited:

25 Sharps

Well-Known Member
#5
I'm no expert on shooting rights however to me the logic is as follows

You have permission to shoot rabbit on permission B - therefore you are not breaking any law by either possessing a fire arm or discharging it there (unless you have a closed ticket and the land has not been cleared by the police for full bore)

You have permission to shoot deer on permission A.

Therefore by discharging your rifle in permission B but hitting a deer on permission A you have neither broken the letter nor the spirit of the law

Just my take but could be wrong
Open ticket, no calibre restriction on either permission
 

jimmy milnes

Well-Known Member
#6
Why not just ask the landowners of both permissions if it's OK to do this ? After all they are the ones who can hawl you to task if you get a guesstimate answer on here and it turns out wrong

Edit
Imagine the scene
You trying to explain that someone on sd says it's OK to do this while landowners A/B say I don't care don't shoot my land anymore! !
Not worth the risk in my eyes
 
Last edited:

JockStalk

Well-Known Member
#7
You have permission to discharge the rifle on B and to shoot deer on A.

You discharge your rifle on B, as entitled.

The deer gets shot on A, as entitled.

Whats the problem?
 

rainman_l

Well-Known Member
#9
I cannot see an issue in my personal opinion assuming no calibre restrictions. It may be worth establishing consent to recover the carcass from land A shot on B so no complications exist
 

kennyc

Well-Known Member
#11
i agree with this.

only problem is what the sporting rights owner would think.
if he hasn't got the sporting rights on A then wheres his beef? obviously he could say that the Deer would possibly come onto B but thenthey are not being shot on B and he doesn't own the deer only the right to shoot them on B?
 
#12
I usually see more deer on permission c! They just stand there, mocking me!
Oh there's a permission 'C,' 'B' sits in the middle and C holds a stupid amounts of deer, roe and muntjac, they have a stalker who apparently doesn't do much stalking. On the bright side B isn't very big :D.

No one shoots anything on B bar me, in all honesty IF said situation arises I think I'll just wait for an occasion where the deer shows in a better position.

Thanks for the input.
 
#13
if he hasn't got the sporting rights on A then wheres his beef? obviously he could say that the Deer would possibly come onto B but thenthey are not being shot on B and he doesn't own the deer only the right to shoot them on B?
Well I'm sure you can now guess which 'C' is mate and therefore 'B' and 'A' :doh:.

I'd obviously speak to all parties involved and think all would be fine landowner wise, but it's the 3rd party sporting rights and legal side of things I was interested in, that's all really.
 

2130martin

Well-Known Member
#15
Interested in people's opinions on this.

I have 2 permissions that border each other, deer permission on one (A) but not on the other (B) because the owner doesn't own the sporting rights (I do rabbit control for them and they are happy that I am controlling the deer on the bordering land), if an instance arose whereby there was a deer on permission A but the only way I could get a safe shot was to shoot from permission B where do I stand legally on this?

Probably hypothetical based on the land in question as back stop is generally quite good but you never know what occasion may arise!

Does the tenancy allow the tenant to shoot rabbits,is that excluded from the sporting rights?I doubt that they are even allowed to shoot rabbits,thats usually the case....
 

VSS

Well-Known Member
#16
Does the tenancy allow the tenant to shoot rabbits,is that excluded from the sporting rights?I doubt that they are even allowed to shoot rabbits,thats usually the case....

The ground game act (1885 I think) allows an occupier (eg, tenant farmer) or a member of his family, or one person employed by him for the purpose, to control rabbits even if he doesn't have the sporting rights, and even if rabbits are listed within the sporting rights as "exclusive to the owner of the rights". The only caveat is that the person he's given permission to must have it in writing, and must be paid to control the rabbits. Allowing the shooter to keep the carcasses counts as payment in this case.
 
#17
Does the tenancy allow the tenant to shoot rabbits,is that excluded from the sporting rights?I doubt that they are even allowed to shoot rabbits,thats usually the case....
I shoot rabbits for a couple of tenants

The ground game act (1885 I think) allows an occupier (eg, tenant farmer) or a member of his family, or one person employed by him for the purpose, to control rabbits even if he doesn't have the sporting rights, and even if rabbits are listed within the sporting rights as "exclusive to the owner of the rights". The only caveat is that the person he's given permission to must have it in writing, and must be paid to control the rabbits. Allowing the shooter to keep the carcasses counts as payment in this case.
Based on this, it enshrines the right of the tenant to protect his crop from ground game (extends to Hare) so that landowners can't prevent them to preserve their sport.
 

VSS

Well-Known Member
#18
I shoot rabbits for a couple of tenants



Based on this, it enshrines the right of the tenant to protect his crop from ground game (extends to Hare) so that landowners can't prevent them to preserve their sport.

That's correct. I read up on it fairly recently, a transcript of the original debate in the house of lords. Quite interesting.
 

Top