Shooting across 2 permissions

another way to look at it

if you are on perm B with a rabbit calibre rifle as you cant stalk on there why are you shooting on to A with same calibre?

not trying to provoke just a diffferent view
 
another way to look at it

if you are on perm B with a rabbit calibre rifle as you cant stalk on there why are you shooting on to A with same calibre?

not trying to provoke just a diffferent view
Boydy is not precious about what rabbits get shot with, and often has 3 calibres in the truck:p
 
Quite sure you can not shoot over land which you do not have permission or rights to shoot over it, its like sitting on a perm where the field may wrap around a neighboring permission sort of like a horseshoe shape and you shoot across the neighboring land to hit your quarry.

Not sure what the law says but I think its something to do with the airspace which you would be shooting through, otherwise you could shoot a pheasant say in flight knowing it would drop on your shoot.

It is definitely written somewhere and I would check it out before shooting.
 
Quite sure you can not shoot over land which you do not have permission or rights to shoot over it, its like sitting on a perm where the field may wrap around a neighboring permission sort of like a horseshoe shape and you shoot across the neighboring land to hit your quarry.

Not sure what the law says but I think its something to do with the airspace which you would be shooting through, otherwise you could shoot a pheasant say in flight knowing it would drop on your shoot.

It is definitely written somewhere and I would check it out before shooting.

But the OP has permission to shoot on land A & B, so what you say does not apply.
 
Surely the safe way to look at this is you're not sure is don't do it?

"When in doubt, hang about" as the expression goes.

With the best will in the world to those who have already commented, if the OP does shoot and ends up in the brown stuff, using "but someone on SD said it was ok" is probably not going to hold much water.

Your agreement is with the landowners and it is them you need to keep happy - If you're not sure where you stand in relation to your contract with them then it is them you need to clarify this with. They might be fine with it in which case all is well, but if they're not its better that you've cleared it up with them before you put your foot in it.
 
But the OP has permission to shoot on land A & B, so what you say does not apply.

He has permission to shoot rabbits on the one and rabbits and deer on the other so if the landowner is not the holder of the shooting rights then he cannot give permission to anyone to shoot deer from his land even though the deer is on ground that he can shoot deer on.
If he shot a deer from this land and then the shooting rights owner turned up, in law, the onus would be on him to prove that he shot the deer whilst on the correct land as it could be suggested that he shot it on land which he didn't have permission to shoot deer on.

At the end of the day, it is far better to just do what you know for certain you can do rather than just do something because you think its correct as the law does not accept this as an excuse in court. You as the shooter will always have to prove you are right and not the law as they will accept third party evidence as factual.

Easiest thing to do is find somewhere to put a high seat up on the land where you do have permission to shoot deer or check who has the sporting rights for the other land and try to get an agreement in writing that they are ok with you shooting over their land to cull deer on a neighbouring land.

If land around you has stalkers on it you can guarantee you are being watched, waiting for you to make that one little mistake which you can be reported to the police for and with trail cameras everywhere they would have all the evidence they need.
 
He has permission to shoot rabbits on the one and rabbits and deer on the other so if the landowner is not the holder of the shooting rights then he cannot give permission to anyone to shoot deer from his land even though the deer is on ground that he can shoot deer on.
If he shot a deer from this land and then the shooting rights owner turned up, in law, the onus would be on him to prove that he shot the deer whilst on the correct land as it could be suggested that he shot it on land which he didn't have permission to shoot deer on.

At the end of the day, it is far better to just do what you know for certain you can do rather than just do something because you think its correct as the law does not accept this as an excuse in court. You as the shooter will always have to prove you are right and not the law as they will accept third party evidence as factual.

Easiest thing to do is find somewhere to put a high seat up on the land where you do have permission to shoot deer or check who has the sporting rights for the other land and try to get an agreement in writing that they are ok with you shooting over their land to cull deer on a neighbouring land.

If land around you has stalkers on it you can guarantee you are being watched, waiting for you to make that one little mistake which you can be reported to the police for and with trail cameras everywhere they would have all the evidence they need.

We will have to disagree.

I stand by what I said in post 39. I and it's only my humble interpretation is that I can't see any legal reason why I should not do so.

Although I do agree that it's common courtesy that one should speak to all concerned but that does not alter the legalities
 
A bit simplistic I know, but why don't you ask the man who gave permission for rabbits only if he has any objections to shooting deer on the neighbouring land from his, got to be the easiest way to sort it surely.

John
 
A bit simplistic I know, but why don't you ask the man who gave permission for rabbits only if he has any objections to shooting deer on the neighbouring land from his, got to be the easiest way to sort it surely.

John

The voice of reason.
 
The voice of reason.

Knowing me, I've probably got the wrong end of the stick, but did not the OP say both parties have no objection to him controlling the deer on land A.

So I presume from that the tenant of land B has no objection and the OP just want's to know the legalities of him doing when the tenant of land B can not give permission to shoot deer on his tenanted land.
 
Knowing me, I've probably got the wrong end of the stick, but did not the OP say both parties have no objection to him controlling the deer on land A.

So I presume from that the tenant of land B has no objection and the OP just want's to know the legalities of him doing when the tenant of land B can not give permission to shoot deer on his tenanted land.

If I remember correctly, it was whether he could shoot at a deer on land A while standing on land B. He has permission to shoot on both, but only A allows deer.
 
Holy thread resurrection

If I remember correctly, it was whether he could shoot at a deer on land A while standing on land B. He has permission to shoot on both, but only A allows deer.
This is, or indeed was the case, I now have permission on A & B so no issues at although the horses are on B now and I've not seen a deer since they've been out. C alas is still vermin only but as I enjoy bunny shooting as much as stalking that's not the end of the world (apart from seeing nice bucks all the time on C at the mo !
 
Last edited:
Back
Top