where would i stand if

[JonathanL 4]

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!

 

That's not true and bullets aren't firearms.

 

J.

[waidmann 105]

i'm not sure about here but the european law says that the ending of the animals suffering goes above the ground rights AND firearms laws etc.(animal welfare)i.e. you could shoot the deer with .22lr or shot if no "suitable" cal were available or deer were not on your ticket(exmpting circumstances for breaking the law,meaning the law is infringed but would not be follwed up on due to.......)

if within sight of the boundry.if not then go and shoot it if in sight of the boundry(this is where an understanding with the occupier would be very usefull!!).if not in sight then you should ask the owner/occupier for permission(unless you are a professional/blood trailer with a suitable dog and the follow up is expected to be a short one.this may ONLY apply in germany)

you would have no right to remove the carcass without permission(unless you have permission from the owner)even if you are taking it to the owner!!!

all wild animals are without ownership(with a few exeptions)untill they are killed in which case they belong to the land owner/occupier(as do shed antlers etc)

to take it would be theft.

 

not sure if that helps very much?

 

waidmann

[JonathanL 4]

 

 

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

 

This definitely isn't correct. There is no "property" in a legal sense in wild growth - which includes animals. A landowner does not "own" wild things on his land but has a right to "take" them under certain circumstances. This is why you can't be convicted of theft if you steal a living animal from someones land. The offence of theft is dishonestly appropriating "property belonging to another" and wild animals are not property of anyone untuil they are dead - hence, no theft occurs. If they were then we wouldn't have need for poaching laws as taking animals would simply be charged as theft.

 

He wouldn't be guilty of stealing your bullet either. Is the bullet your property? Probably not as I'm sure that the law would consider that you had abandoned it when you fired it. There are also issues involved with the phrase "belonging to another"; this phrase isn't the same as ownership, something can belong to someone who has temporary custody of it - I forget the precise wording. So, he'd argue that it didn't belong to you at the time he took it, it actually belonged to him. Also, has he "appropriated" it? Not by the looks of it as you set in motion the chain of events which led to it ending up in his possession.

 

J.

 

J.

[JonathanL 4]

 

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.

 

 

Do they though? Do you know which particular piece of law says this? It may say it in relation to deer lawfully shot on land over which you have permission to shoot but if it dies on someone elses land then it's theirs as far as I can see. You'd have no claim on it as it wasn't anyones property at the time you shot it.

 

J.

[waidmann 105]

if you have written permission on a piece of land it should read" has the authority to cull/hunt........................and to remove the kill"

 

the right to shoot and kill BELONGS to the land owner and the permission holder is merely using the right "by proxy" so to speak.

 

waidmann

[JonathanL 4]

A few years ago a man was driving down the road in his MG sports car when a Roe Buck jump over the hedge into the road and was hit by the car,the driver after seeing the damage to his pride and joy thought he would have something out of his ordeal and put the deer into the boot of his car,just then a game keeper came along and told him to leave the deer alone as it was his deer because he keepered all the ground on both sides of the road,the car driver told the keeper to piss off he was getting something for the damage to his car and drove off.Weeks went by and the car driver got summond to court for theft of a deer the game keeper had traced the driver by his number plate.In the court the keeper claimed the deer to be his

the man was charged by the magistrate for theft after saying the deer had done £150 of damage he was ordered to pay £ 50 fine ,The keeper who claimed the deer was fined £350 and £ cost plus the £ 150 compensation to the driver of the sports car for not keeping his animals under proper control.

 

The theft will come from the fact that he took it from the public road - not because it jumped from the keepers property. It may have been farmed deer though which would change things.

[waidmann 105]

i would suggest the deer was out of a pen,only then could he be responsible for its actions.

the deer would have been "his" if it was a private road belonging to the estate or similar.

if the deer had been deemed to be the property of the keeper then he would surely have had to pay for the car?

 

the man may have been fined as he killed a deer and then took it away.if the man in the next car had taken it he would not have been fined.

 

 

waidmann

[Colster 1]

If you want to pick through the end of the Deer Act it states what previous acts are amended and repealed by it.

 

Basically going on to another piece of land where you don't have permission to be with the intent to kill or injure a deer (even if it is to end it's suffering) could be classed as poaching unless...

 

 

..and here's your get out clause

 

(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;

 

If you can reasonably claim that if the land owner knew there was an injured deer on his land and you were in an ideal position to end it's suffering that he would then grant permission then you couldn't be arrested for taking a weapon on to his land to finish the job. This is a strong defence as the courts would need some form of empirical proof that the landowner definitely WOULD NOT have allowed you on there to even bring a prosecution... and that YOU knew it.

 

The carcass however would belong to the owner of the land where it fell... roadkill belongs to the highways agency (not the car behind you - urban myth).

[riohog 5,712]

What about if i stand in the middle of a river fishing, one bank belongs to land owener (A) the other bank belongs to landowner( i am dead in the middle and i have a license and catch a salmon ,whoes fish is it??

you would have to land the fish on the bank that you had permission to fish off /or land it were you do have permission ,,otherwise you are poaching !!

[waidmann 105]

this is not the berlin wall bud and there is no "no mans land".

it goes as far as to say that the salmon/deer woul be more on one side or the other? if not i suppose the deer would be split between both.

(a good kick when no one is looking may help )

 

waidmann

[HUnter_zero 58]

What about if i stand in the middle of a river fishing, one bank belongs to land owener (A) the other bank belongs to landowner( i am dead in the middle and i have a license and catch a salmon ,whoes fish is it??

 

 

I once asked this question to a river bailiff and he told me, the fish would belong to 'me' but who ever owned the fishing rights on the side I entered the river could have me prosecuted for poaching. How right or wrong this is, I don't know because I am the worlds worst angler.

 

John

[waidmann 105]

What about if i stand in the middle of a river fishing, one bank belongs to land owener (A) the other bank belongs to landowner( i am dead in the middle and i have a license and catch a salmon ,whoes fish is it??

 

 

I once asked this question to a river bailiff and he told me, the fish would belong to 'me' but who ever owned the fishing rights on the side I entered the river could have me prosecuted for poaching. How right or wrong this is, I don't know because I am the worlds worst angler.

 

John

 

 

not too good myself

michael

[HUnter_zero 58]

 

 

not too good myself

michael

 

 

Picture, Mrs H_Z and I on a rocky beach in deepest South Wales, this was the day I decided to take up sea fishing, about six months in to our courtship. MY very first cast, and the lead weight flew well in to the tens of yards, rag worm and a little bread attached to my slightly over sized hook. I need a big hook because it was cod fishing season, and as cod live in the sea I was bound to catch one of these beauties for our tea!

Mrs H_Z managed to get to twenty whole minutes before complaining she was cold and that the chip shop was only half a mile down the road.

Nope, I was having nothing of the sort. Another twenty minuets of complaining past when all of a sudden I had a bite! This monster was pulling like a train, the tip of the rod flexing back and forth and all the time me doing my best to reel in our tea. Sod this me thinks, so I started to walk towards the sea, and as I didn't want to lose this, mainly due to pride as apposed to necessity I started a long walk in to the sea, I set my my maximum water height near my lower thigh, the water was surprisingly shallow, ten yards in and it was just lashing over my topper most lace on my trainers, fifteen yards and suddenly the fish gave up the fight, the rod came upright, and, and, and there was a crab, little bigger than the bottom of a tea light. That was the last time I went sea fishing. It was a bloody strong crab for it's size mind.

 

John

Edited April 6, 2010 by HUnter_zero

[RicW 67]

:11:

[waidmann 105]

now thats a story!!!!!!!

when i said i'm not too bad................................i take it back

 

thanks for sharing that bud

 

waidmann