where would i stand if

[JonathanL 4]

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.

 

No. The burdon of proof lies with the person seeking to use the defence. He doesn't have to show that the landowner would have let him do it, he has to prove that he was of the belief that the landowner would have let him do it. He has to prove what his mind-set was at the time, not what the landowners was.

 

J.

[cassshantia 16]

bloody hell ive caused a stir here i just wanted a quick answer ,thanks any way like someone said the position of the deer was a good answer but this must of happen to someone on here ,what did you do ?leave it or risk taking it thinking that the land owner lives miles away and once dragged its yours ?

a bet not many own up to this one ha ha after all these rights and wrongs

cheers for the head doing 4 pages of answers much appreciated as i only asked this question as my permission backs onto several different pieces of land and been a novice i 'll be vert wary

Edited April 6, 2010 by cassshantia

[RicW 67]

now thats a story!!!!!!!

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

 

thanks for sharing that bud

 

waidmann

 

That's what i call a serious codpiece!

[Colster 1]

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.

 

No. The burdon of proof lies with the person seeking to use the defence. He doesn't have to show that the landowner would have let him do it, he has to prove that he was of the belief that the landowner would have let him do it. He has to prove what his mind-set was at the time, not what the landowners was.

 

J.

 

That's entirely the point. The defence is based upon the fact of a reasonable belief that ANY landowner would grant permission in the circumstances. This defence would only be invalid if the prosecution could prove that the shooter had prior reason for thinking/knowing that this permission would NOT be granted.

[matt_hooks 188]

My approach would be to talk to as many of the neighbours as possible, and ascertain in advance whether they might be agreeable to you coming on to their land in order to track and dispatch a wounded deer. I would expect it to be reciprocal, so if they wounded a deer I'd be more than happy for them to come onto my patch to dispatch.

 

Arranging it in advance saves a lot of worry about if's, but's and maybe's. Of course if they say "no" then you'd need to abide by it, as it removes the "good reason to believe that permission would be granted" defence!

 

Who the deer belongs to once it's shot seems perfectly clear in the law. There is no ownership of a wild animal until it is dead. Once it is dead, the carcass belongs to the owner of the land on which it lies. Of course with the reciprocal agreement I'd expect to retrieve the carcasses, and the neighbours to do the same.

 

On a separate note, what form of words do people prefer for their written permissions from landowners? I've got a few to set up and I want to make sure that the permissions are robust, any suggestions would be gratefully received!

 

Matt

[cassshantia 16]

My approach would be to talk to as many of the neighbours as possible, and ascertain in advance whether they might be agreeable to you coming on to their land in order to track and dispatch a wounded deer. I would expect it to be reciprocal, so if they wounded a deer I'd be more than happy for them to come onto my patch to dispatch.

 

Arranging it in advance saves a lot of worry about if's, but's and maybe's. Of course if they say "no" then you'd need to abide by it, as it removes the "good reason to believe that permission would be granted" defence!

 

Who the deer belongs to once it's shot seems perfectly clear in the law. There is no ownership of a wild animal until it is dead. Once it is dead, the carcass belongs to the owner of the land on which it lies. Of course with the reciprocal agreement I'd expect to retrieve the carcasses, and the neighbours to do the same.

 

On a separate note, what form of words do people prefer for their written permissions from landowners? I've got a few to set up and I want to make sure that the permissions are robust, any suggestions would be gratefully received!

 

Matt