shooting permission boundaries

[gummy_bear]

Recently, I have been invited for a day shooting.
In one of the drives, it happened that one of the guns dropped a bird on a neighbouring field that apparently was not on the permission. He walked over, without the gun to take the bird.
The nextdoor owner arrived and said that bird belong to him.

Could anyone point /advise on the current legislation regarding the situation above?

thanks,

 

[David.evans]

The bird is the neighbours , what’s on his land he owns, I’m sure

 

[_jon_h_]

I believe he is correct in saying it is his; or at least that is what we were taught at college.
You need permission to pick up shot game from land which is not yours, be that by hand or using a dog.

 

[J@son]

Walking on to the neighbouring property was trespass (civil wrong) - assuming he did so without the land owner’s permission and the land owner objected. Had he done so with his gun, this would have been armed trespass (criminal wrong - hence more significant as the Police can get involved) - again assuming the land owner objected. And had he removed the fallen game bird (again assuming....) he would have committed theft.

Any quarry (dead or alive) belongs to the owner of the land it is on. If it crosses a boundary, ownership transfers.

(This is why it is such a good idea to liaise with the landowners alongside your stalking permissions and seek their consent to pursue/retrieve injured/fallen deer that have crossed on to their land from yours... if you follow an injured deer with your gun onto private property you risk being prosecuted for armed trespass if the land owner objects)

 

[Cranhill]

It’s his

 

[The Singing Stalker]

if It is on his land. It is his.

 

[Jon P]

The carcass belongs to the neighbours. This year , I had a fallow doe run 30 yds and died just over the boundary on to permissions I have not got . The new neighbours turned up not long after the shot. After a quick discussion I gave him the carcass , ( I still had to grollach it for him though). But I have now got his mobile number so I can retrieve any others in the future. He has a family member doing the stalking on his bit so won’t get the permission but at least I can sort out any runners now.

 

[Stalker62]

....at least I can sort out any runners now.

That's the way to do it.

 

[8x57]

The carcass belongs to the neighbours. This year , I had a fallow doe run 30 yds and died just over the boundary on to permissions I have not got . The new neighbours turned up not long after the shot. After a quick discussion I gave him the carcass , ( I still had to grollach it for him though). But I have now got his mobile number so I can retrieve any others in the future. He has a family member doing the stalking on his bit so won’t get the permission but at least I can sort out any runners now.

Nicely resolved.

 

[Highfield]

in law the neigbour was correct. in practice it dropping birds over boundrys is just a recipe for problems down the line. i have seen long running disputes with really sereius consequences start from something as simple as this .

 

[mike308]

I recently had a roe which jumped the boundary fence, instead of just climbing the fence to retrieve it I drove round to the farmhouse and had a chat with the farmer. Result no problem retrieve the carcass and as long as I give him a few carcasses each year I can stalk his ground as well.

 

[JTO]

Wild creatures do not belong to anybody until they are dead, then they belong to the landowner where they lie.

 

[J@son]

instead of just climbing the fence to retrieve it I drove round to the farmhouse and had a chat with the farmer.

I think this is so sensible. All credit to you. You couldn't ask for better evidence that you are respectful of the farmer's property rights and cautious about making assumptions. Keeping the public on board has never been more important and I think the way you approached this it is a great advert for stalkers/stalking. It's great that you reaped the reward and ended up extending the land you can shoot over - justly deserved.

 

[J@son]

Wild creatures do not belong to anybody until they are dead,

I think I understand why you write this but I don't think you are correct. Under UK law, in most circumstances*, the owner of the land is regarded as the qualified owner of any wild animals on it. Qualified in the sense that their ownership ceases the moment the animal crosses their boundary. However, it means they can exercise the rights associated with ownership - for example the right to shoot it (assuming the law permits this and they haven't passed this right to somone else). This qualified ownership grants the landowner rights over the animal that other people don't have - and it is a right of ownership.

A dead wild animal, on the other hand, belongs in absolute terms to the person on whose land it has fallen - although again I expect there will be expections*.

* in both instances exceptions will relate to specific animals. I imagine (but I'm not sure) that this will include swans, sturgeon and whales and these appear to be exceptions in almost all uk legislation!

 

[8x57]

Wild creatures do not belong to anybody until they are dead, then they belong to the landowner where they lie.

Deer law and liabilities first edition (Parkes & Thorney) says-

Wild deer that are free to roam from one person's land to another belong to no one; they are ownerless. They are wild animals, ferae naturae, and therefore are known as res nullius, things without an owner. (The case of Swans 1592-Co.Rep. 15b at 17b.)
Ownership of the land which wild deer may occupy does not carry with it any rights of ownership of the deer whilst they remain wild. However, Common Law has always conveyed to the landowner certain rights in respect of the use of the land and things found upon it. Consequently deer found dead on the land, caught accidentally in fences or killed in some other way become the property of the landowner subject to any legal agreement in which the rights may have passed to another - e.g. in a sporting lease.

 

[Pedro]

I think I understand why you write this but I don't think you are correct. Under UK law, in most circumstances*, the owner of the land is regarded as the qualified owner of any wild animals on it. Qualified in the sense that their ownership ceases the moment the animal crosses their boundary. However, it means they can exercise the rights associated with ownership - for example the right to shoot it (assuming the law permits this and they haven't passed this right to somone else). This qualified ownership grants the landowner rights over the animal that other people don't have - and it is a right of ownership.

A dead wild animal, on the other hand, belongs in absolute terms to the person on whose land it has fallen - although again I expect there will be expections*.

* in both instances exceptions will relate to specific animals. I imagine (but I'm not sure) that this will include swans, sturgeon and whales and these appear to be exceptions in almost all uk legislation!

Wild animals certainly do not belong to anyone. That's the definition of being wild! They are not considered property in any sense. That's why you can't be prosecuted for theft if you take one from someone else's land. That's why the poaching laws and The Deer Act were introduced, to protect the hunting interests of land owners. The land owner has certain rights of course. He can hunt/kill them on his land (other laws permitting) for example, but wild animals do not become property until they are killed.

You can steal a farmer's sheep or cows, you can even steal a farmed deer, which are all property but wild animals, nope.

 

[gummy_bear]

thanks for the advice
is anyone having a link to the current legislation/ BASC /SACS ??

 

[J@son]

The case of Swans 1592-Co.Rep. 15b at 17b

I don't think you are right in referring to this case in this instance.

The Case of Swans (1592) does indeed establish that the animals in question (swans) were wild and therefore not the absolute property of anyone - and as a result their ownership could not be transferred to another person. But this is not the point here - which relates to the qualified ownership that a land owner can assert over wild animals on his/her property.

There is definitely an interesting tension here. Think, for instance, of a rabbit warrener - who is in effect "farming" through enclosure "wild" animals. Or indeed of a bee keeper.

As I understand it current UK law will uphold the qualified ownership of these wild animals.

 

[JTO]

Far better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are stupid than to open it and confirm their suspicions beyond all doubt.

 

[Pedro]

As I understand it current UK law will uphold the qualified ownership of these wild animals.

Nope. Having some rights concerning wild animals on your land is NOT the same as having ownership of them.