where would i stand if

[HUnter_zero 58]

Deer Act 1991 c.54

 

1 Poaching of deer .

Clear everything up?

 

 

Yes if you were poaching.

 

John

[kill um with crisps 7]

I did hear that as bullets are classed as firearms if said bullet goes onto land where you dont have permission (even if its embedded in a deer, rabbit, fox etc etc) you are still committing armed trespass!

[AzMaN 0]

I did hear that as bullets are classed as firearms if said bullet goes onto land where you dont have permission (even if its embedded in a deer, rabbit, fox etc etc) you are still committing armed trespass!

 

nope, because it will not be a live projectile its just the head, and you can take the components anywhere you like, it only becomes an offence when they are all combined to create a live round.

[HUnter_zero 58]

Extract from Deer: law and liabilities.

 

'There is a view based on the games laws that where deer are legitimately shot on land where authority exists, but fall dead over the boundary, they can be recovered. Whilst this may provide a "legal right" (deer act)there remains the issue of trespass and ownership of carcass at civil law' : MY NOTE it would be for the landowner and not the police to pursue the OP in court and if the landowner could claim that the deer was in fact alive whilst on his land, but dropped dead sometime after entering his land, then he may have a case.

 

Case law:

 

The case of Jemmison v. Priddle (1971).

Involved the shooting of a deer close to a boundary. One of the deer, a red hind, was shot on land where permission was granted. The animal subsequently ran and dropped dead on the other side of the boundary. Although the case centred around where the land was enclosed for the purpose of exemption from the need for a game license, it was excepted that deer shot on land legitimately may run and drop on land where no such permission existed. However the case did not rule on the ownership of the carcass which was later seized by the owner of land where it fell.

 

 

The only other reference I can find that may be relevant is "It is commonly accepted under common law that a wild animal belongs to the owner of the land on which the animal resides" it does not however define who owns the animal after death, which is why you don't have a case against the council when involved in an RTA with a deer.

 

As an after thought, if the adjacent landowner did claim ownership of the carcass, could you then accuse him/her of stealing your bullet?

 

John

Edited April 5, 2010 by HUnter_zero

[Deker 3,478]

 

Help me out here, fortunately this has never happened to me as mine fall over when I shoot them, but this does not seem correct to me, have I missed something somewhere?

 

Where have you taken this from?

 

Cheers

 

 

Came as a bit of a shock to me as well.

 

Have a look in "Fair Game" the law of country sports and the protection of wildlife (ISBN 0720717345), ownership of wild game (or deer) can only be achieved after death and only by the person who killed the game.

A wild deer is just that, wild with no owner. If YOU kill it or reduce it to possession, YOU own it, no matter where the animal dies. Now it becomes complex, with regards to the circumstances of the animals demise.

 

Extracted from the book (adapted slightly with (a)/( & You) :

 

Example : Land (a) is you legal shooting ground. Land ( is the next door farm land, where you have no legal right to cross or shoot.

 

If you legitimately shoot game on (a) and it falls alive (non-lethal injury) on (, you have some claim on the game and may feel obligated to pursue it but will commit a poaching offense if you retrieve it with out legal permission on (.

 

If you retrieve game from ( which was in the first instance legitimately shot over (a) then you commit an act of civil trespass if permission is not sort to retrieve the game, even though you have the legal right to ownership of the game (or deer).

 

In essence, ownership of illegally taken game is that of the landowner (only) as this makes civil prosecution easier. Where game (or deer) legally taken, crosses boundaries, rightful ownership is not straightforward.

 

John

 

 

OK, this is getting complicated, I can't find much on Fair Game, except it was first published in 1987, I will have to try and track down a copy, but I note it appears to have been re-issued/revised more than once.

 

Neither do I know what law/laws specifically it relates to, the Deer Act 1991 is the definitive Deer Law with 2007 Amendments, so I struggle to understand how anything can override it! Especially if it has not been confirmed in the 2007 Amendment. You cannot have two conflicting laws on the statute books!

 

[Treacle Trackpad 6]

...Case law:

 

The case of Jemmison v. Priddle (1971).

Involved the shooting of a deer close to a boundary. One of the deer, a red hind, was shot on land where permission was granted. The animal subsequently ran and dropped dead on the other side of the boundary. Although the case centred around where the land was enclosed for the purpose of exemption from the need for a game license, it was excepted that deer shot on land legitimately may run and drop on land where no such permission existed. However the case did not rule on the ownership of the carcass which was later seized by the owner of land where it fell.

 

Which therefore has no relevance on what we are debating here.

 

 

The only other reference I can find that may be relevant is "It is commonly accepted under common law that a wild animal belongs to the owner of the land on which the animal resides" it does not however define who owns the animal after death, which is why you don't have a case against the council when involved in an RTA with a deer...

 

Yet with deer this would appear to be the other way round.

 

[Deker 3,478]

Extract from Deer: law and liabilities.

 

'There is a view based on the games laws that where deer are legitimately shot on land where authority exists, but fall dead over the boundary, they can be recovered. Whilst this may provide a "legal right" (deer act)there remains the issue of trespass and ownership of carcass at civil law' : MY NOTE it would be for the landowner and not the police to pursue the OP in court and if the landowner could claim that the deer was in fact alive whilst on his land, but dropped dead sometime after entering his land, then he may have a case.

 

Case law:

 

The case of Jemmison v. Priddle (1971).

Involved the shooting of a deer close to a boundary. One of the deer, a red hind, was shot on land where permission was granted. The animal subsequently ran and dropped dead on the other side of the boundary. Although the case centred around where the land was enclosed for the purpose of exemption from the need for a game license, it was excepted that deer shot on land legitimately may run and drop on land where no such permission existed. However the case did not rule on the ownership of the carcass which was later seized by the owner of land where it fell.

 

 

The only other reference I can find that may be relevant is "It is commonly accepted under common law that a wild animal belongs to the owner of the land on which the animal resides" it does not however define who owns the animal after death, which is why you don't have a case against the council when involved in an RTA with a deer.

 

As an after thought, if the adjacent landowner did claim ownership of the carcass, could you then accuse him/her of stealing your bullet?

 

John

 

Any case law from 1971 would have been overridden By the Deer Act 1991 if there were any points of conflict!

Edited April 5, 2010 by Deker

[HUnter_zero 58]

OK, this is getting complicated,

 

 

In essence we are dealing with two areas of legislation, which are conflicting but relevant.

 

The game laws give ownership of dead game to the person who actually kills the game.

 

Now the deer act makes it illegal to remove a deer carcass under the section of 'poaching', which you are obviously not if you are retrieving shot game from over a boundary line.

 

See below:

1

Poaching of deer .(1)

Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person enters any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, he shall be guilty of an offence. .

(2)

Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person while on any land— .

(a)

intentionally takes, kills or injures, or attempts to take, kill or injure, any deer, .

(

searches for or pursues any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, or .

©

removes the carcase of any deer, .

without the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or other lawful authority, he shall be guilty of an offence.(3)

A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above by reason of anything done in the belief that— .

(a)

he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it; or .

(

he has other lawful authority to do it.

 

As stated in Deer law & liabilities.

The fact that the game laws make the owner of the dead animal the person who has shot/killed the animal, this would/could provide 'other' legal authority with regards to the deer act.

However, there are still civil concerns, which is also true of the game laws when removing game.

 

I guess the bottom lines are, if you shoot it, you become liable for it. Look at it this way, if you shot a stag, that ran on to a motorway, died and caused a ten car pile resulting in six deaths, who would carry the liability the council or you? All said and done, I would personally always go and ask if it was practical before I recovered a carcass. It would be interesting to hear if anyone has ever been prosecuted for recovering a carcass with out first obtaining permission from the landowner.

John

[coldweld 65]

The simple answer is ignorance is no defence !

 

Therefore if you are unsure do NOT enter land you have no permission on to retrive a dead/wounded beast.

 

A, if you take your rifle- offence ARMED TRESPASS [ to kill a wounded animal 'which you have wounded is not a valid reason for tresspass'

 

b, leave unloaded rifle on your land- offence Falure to store/secure firearm ' plus you might take the bolt which as part of a firearm becomes Armed Tresspass.

 

c, Even if the deer is shot on your land you have no legal right to enter someone elses land to retreve it as said deer belong to no one therfore because you failed to kill it gives you NO LEGAL ownership [ the old deers leep law is no longer valid ]

 

 

The ONLY way is to approch the other owners and ask for permission to retreve and give them the same rights on your land .If they say no then so be it .

One beast is not worth your ticket ?

[Deker 3,478]

OK, this is getting complicated,

 

 

In essence we are dealing with two areas of legislation, which are conflicting but relevant.

 

The game laws give ownership of dead game to the person who actually kills the game.

 

Now the deer act makes it illegal to remove a deer carcass under the section of 'poaching', which you are obviously not if you are retrieving shot game from over a boundary line.

 

See below:

1

Poaching of deer .(1)

Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person enters any land without the consent of the owner or occupier or other lawful authority in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, he shall be guilty of an offence. .

(2)

Subject to subsection (3) below, if any person while on any land— .

(a)

intentionally takes, kills or injures, or attempts to take, kill or injure, any deer, .

(

searches for or pursues any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, or .

©

removes the carcase of any deer, .

without the consent of the owner or occupier of the land or other lawful authority, he shall be guilty of an offence.(3)

A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above by reason of anything done in the belief that— .

(a)

he would have the consent of the owner or occupier of the land if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it; or .

(

he has other lawful authority to do it.

 

As stated in Deer law & liabilities.

The fact that the game laws make the owner of the dead animal the person who has shot/killed the animal, this would/could provide 'other' legal authority with regards to the deer act.

However, there are still civil concerns, which is also true of the game laws when removing game.

 

I guess the bottom lines are, if you shoot it, you become liable for it. Look at it this way, if you shot a stag, that ran on to a motorway, died and caused a ten car pile resulting in six deaths, who would carry the liability the council or you? All said and done, I would personally always go and ask if it was practical before I recovered a carcass. It would be interesting to hear if anyone has ever been prosecuted for recovering a carcass with out first obtaining permission from the landowner.

John

 

 

 

 

What are these Game Laws and which section gives ownership of deer to the person who shot it rather than the person whos land it is on? The Regulatory Reform (Game) Order 2007 brought changes concerning deer, etc, but I don't recall anything about this!

 

This made changes to various Acts, some dating back to 18**, and for any enacted prior to the Deer Act 1991 then the Deer Act would take precedence!

 

John, just for the record, I am not looking for grief here, I am just trying to get the facts straight for myself!

Edited April 5, 2010 by Deker

[RicW 67]

I raised my question with reference to humane killing of an injured beast, rather than possession of the carcass. Frankly, I don't give a monkey's who owns the body. I'd like to know the position about the necessity for a humane final shot.

 

Apologies to the OP if I am hijacking your thread.

 

Ric

[coldweld 65]

Richard that would be Trespass with a firearm !

 

Looking at a spell of HMP !! Irrisective of your intent to end suffering .

[ArchieHood 3,692]

A good post with a healthy response ..... Now without causing a stir would the positioning of the deer not be taken into account before the trigger is pulled ?

[JonathanL 4]

i have been on the day out with another friend and on one occasion the shot deer ran on about 50 meters then dropped fortunately it dropped on his permission

as im a new one to this sport /management of deer as ive got land to shoot on,

where would i stand if the(shot) deer ran onto permission where i dont have the right

any pointers please to put my mind at rest

thanks lee

 

I'd imagine that if it died on the other property then you would probably be guilty of theft if you went and retrieved it. Also, trespass with a firearm.

 

J.

[JonathanL 4]

 

where would i stand if the(shot) deer ran onto permission where i dont have the right

any pointers please to put my mind at rest

thanks lee

 

 

I presume that you are asking where you would stand legally if you shot a deer which ran and died on to an adjacent farm where you had no permission to be or shoot on.

 

As long as you shot the deer on land where you did have permission then as long as you didn't take your rifle with you the only crime you would commit would be trespass which is a civil offence, you would have reduced the deer to 'possession' and the deer would belong to you. If the land owner would not give you the deer back, then the land owner would be guilty of theft.

 

John

 

Don't agree on the last part. It's in the possession of, and owned by, the person who owns the land it died on. There is no property right in a wild creature until it's dead so if it does on a persons land then they must own it.

 

J

Edited April 6, 2010 by JonathanL