shooting permission boundaries

[geordieh]

It looks as though the distinction between absolute and qualified ownership may be a bit too subtle for some. However, this (quoted from one of Deer Initiative's legal guides) is helpful:

Ownership of deer: Deer which can roam freely are wild animals and are not owned by, or the responsibility of, anyone. A wild deer becomes the property of the landowner when “reduced into possession” i.e. killed or captured, thus a culled deer is the property of the owner of the land on which it dies, a deer killed in a road accident is the property of the owner of the highway, verge or land on which it falls. The status of enclosed deer such as park deer is not so clear, they are generally regarded as “wild” with respect to shooting seasons but in some cases may be regarded as property. There is no clear definition of farmed deer but deer which carry tags which include the agricultural holding number or which are listed as part of a farm enterprise are regarded as domestic livestock and therefore as property.

A wild deer does NOT have to be dead to be reduced into possession - that is to say absolute ownership.

It would certainly be easier if everything could be expressed in very simple terms. But the concepts of "ownership" and "wild" are more complicated that this. I am surprised that anyone thinks I am stupid for pointing this out or expressing an opinion on which someone else takes a different view - particularly as we appear to agree on most points.

So what would happen if you hit a deer on the road and it ended up inside your car.Would it belong to you.

 

[David.evans]

Really
I’d say you’d be in hospital, and call out for the vet to the deer

 

[J@son]

Yikes! I am not sure. But I suspect it wouldn't - unless you owed the land over which you were driving.

I think (but I don't know) that you could not claim to have reduced it into possession - even if it was lying on the passenge seat next to you. Firstly because you are on a public road and secondly (I think) that are some particular regulations that establish that animals killed by cars do NOT below to the driver. I imagine these are designed to discourage people running things over in order to eat them. But I could well be wrong about this.

 

[Jon P]

Yikes! I am not sure. But I suspect it wouldn't - unless you owed the land over which you were driving.

I think (but I don't know) that you could not claim to have reduced it into possession - even if it was lying on the passenge seat next to you. Firstly because you are on a public road and secondly (I think) that are some particular regulations that establish that animals killed by cars do NOT below to the driver. I imagine these are designed to discourage people running things over in order to eat them. But I could well be wrong about this.

I had read a long time ago that the carcass could legally be collected of the road by the car behind. ( this could be very wrong though).

 

[Cranhill]

No you can't it's still the property of the landowner, ie Highway Dept, but you could call Highway dept and say, "I removed a beast from the road for safe keeping and it's available for collection at your address and there'll be a charge your services"

 

[NullMac]

Seeing as how the OP is from North of the Border then the comments on deer do not apply to him/us, just to be clear.

We have the benefit of a Section 25 defence in that we are not guilty of any offence under the Deer Act of any act which is intended to prevent the suffering of injured, diseased or orphans/soon to be orphans.

Section 25 excemption is specifically mentioned in the bit relating to:

- take deer without permission
- removed deer from land without having permission
- kill deer other than by shooting
- killing deer 'out of hours'

However before we all start painting our faces blue, voting for Nicola MacThatcher and heading out to whack everything from the roadside - the highlights of Section 23 (Aristocrats exploiting the Proletariat) include:

- you are guilty of taking deer or possessing firearms illegally if it is "reasonable to infer" that you have committed an offence i.e. assumed guilty
- you can present evidence to prove no offence was committed i.e. guilty unless proven innocent
- you can be convicted on the basis of one witness i.e. the Lord's man.