shooting rights on private property (legally)

.243

can someone clarify this for me,if a person has bought the shooting rights to private property,does this person have the right to vacate another person off that property who has permission direct from the landowner to shoot on that property ??

bunny shooter

.243 wrote: »

can someone clarify this for me,if a person has bought the shooting rights to private property,does this person have the right to vacate another person off that property who has permission direct from the landowner to shoot on that property ??

If I had paid for shooting rights I would want exclusive shooting rights.

Would depend on terms of deal ? Wouldn't be fair to sell rights to one person and allow another/s shoot as well ?

Remmy

well if someone bought the rights the landowners permission wouldn't mean squat because the landowner wouldn't hold the shooting rights any more.Just a stupid man's opinion on the matter,I'm not sure on the strict legalities of the thing.

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

Wouldn't be fair to sell rights to one person and allow another/s shoot as well ?

Fair? No. Legal, absolutely. The contract you would enter into with the landowner would apply to you and you alone. You have no say in his other dealings with other people and he can make other arrangements with other people if he so chooses. However, the right to shoot on the land would have to be agreed to be exclusive if you were to have any legitimate issue with other shooters on the land. If he agrees to allow you sole shooting rights, then allows other shooters on, he's broken the agreement and the case can be disputed. If it wasn't expressly agreed as an exclusive deal at the beginning, I can see no reason he shouldn't allow other shooters on, for free or otherwise. Just my 2c.

maglite

Agree with previous your contract would have to have been an exclusive rights one

if it was i'm sure he did't write it down, so you'll just have to put up and sh€t up

NoNameRanger

The person(or agent of) in possession of the sporting rights is the only person entitled to invite guests to shoot any lands (except for foreshore where a licence is required from the state), they are also entitled to prosecute anybody entering onto this land to hunt under section 44 of the wildlife act, it is also an offence for a person to refuse to give their name and address to the owner of the sporting rights and they can ask you to leave the property. There are alot of farmers out there that do not own the sporting rights on their own land and therefore have no right to give anybody permission to hunt on their land. This come from when the big old estates were being broken up and the landlords retained the sporting rights, many were never used but some people have since purchased these rights and are now excercising them and putting people off the land. The only way i can see that a farmer (owner of the fee simple, grazing right, etc.) in such a situation could allow somebody to hunt on such land would be if damage was being caused to crops and he was to apply for a licence under section 42 of the wildlife act and nominate whoever as the hunter.
Hope this was of help to you. Happy new year to all!!

foxshooter243

There was a case where shooting rights purchased from a london solicitors office belonging to an estate broken up by the land commission
were challenged by the farmers ,the court ruled that the shooting rights had no basis under irish law as they were from before the formation of the estate-the farmers had the rights and the purchased shooting rights were not worth the paper they were written on-i cant quote specifics-just
something to ponder on.

sixpointfive

Is there not a thing that if they are not exercised at least once in 12 years the farmer can give the nod to someone else, maybe that is only for vermin, dont know... but the sporting rights holder has the say of who hunts as far as im aware

foxshooter243

sixpointfive wrote: »

Is there not a thing that if they are not exercised at least once in 12 years the farmer can give the nod to someone else, maybe that is only for vermin, dont know... but the sporting rights holder has the say of who hunts as far as im aware

The end result in this case was was a court case that cost 60k. the
people that bought the " shooting rights" lost out, they finished up
barred from the land where they previously shot and the farmers
put their collective feet down against any future hunting.The court
came down firmly in the favour of the landowners- I think imo that the
best policy all round is get permission from the landowner, i have never
heard of any problem arising from going down that path-no pun intended

Our man in Havana

I know that the local farmer has given half the village the right to shoot on his land for free. Would this be any different in that he has given access to serveral people to shoot?

foxshooter243

Bond-007 wrote: »

I know that the local farmer has given half the village the right to shoot on his land for free. Would this be any different in that he has given access to serveral people to shoot?

It would be entirely up to the farmer -he could let the whole county shoot-in our area we have a farmer who has given permission to members of 2 gun clubs to shoot, so that farm is shared by both clubs, this suits the farmer as he has guys tripping overthemselves to shoot winged vermin
at his cereal crops. Gun clubs sometimes make the mistake by thinking if
a farm falls within their parochial boundary its "THEIRS" to shoot, only
with the landowners consent can they shoot it,also the self same
landowner can give his consent to a shooter on holidays from anywhere
in the world cos its his land. The traditional system in ireland is that every
gun club should respect the parochial boundary when asking permission.
The n.a.r.g.c wont intervene or referee on anyones behalf if the disputed ground falls outside of their parochial boundary. The whole shooting set up
in Ireland outside of state forests, foreshore shooting etc is with the
consent of the owner.

Banjax

It's a fuzzy issue. In many titles and transfer records (land registry documents, farm folios) sporting rights are particularly mentioned. And the landowner is not always the person who holds such rights.

But as far as I know, and indeed as far as I'm concerned, the landowner has the last word about who can be on their land and who can hunt/shoot/whichever.

Sporting rights are a left-over from the days before independance, and should have been left there as well.

realcavanman

What is the situation where land is on a lake side.Can you shoot on the fore shore by accessing via a boat on the lake? I have been told that you have a right to shoot between the high and low water level.

ivanthehunter

Banjax wrote: »

It's a fuzzy issue. In many titles and transfer records (land registry documents, farm folios) sporting rights are particularly mentioned. And the landowner is not always the person who holds such rights.

But as far as I know, and indeed as far as I'm concerned, the landowner has the last word about who can be on their land and who can hunt/shoot/whichever.

Sporting rights are a left-over from the days before independance, and should have been left there as well.

LOOK! Sporting rights are mentioned in some folio's because a person other than the land owner has secured such rights, these are only mentioned when a person other than the title holder is in recievership of such rights thru payment or a gift. In some cases sellers retain the rights.
Sporting rights are mentioned in (irish) law and they have a legal bearing in things. A land owner does not have the final say as to who does and doesnt have access to their land, If i owned the sporting rights to your land you'd have to go through a civil case to get shot of me! And even then you would probable lose out.

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

If i owned the sporting rights to your land you'd have to go through a civil case to get shot of me! And even then you would probable lose out.

And that's precisely the kind of attitude that causes problems in the first place.

(and it wouldn't be hard - you'd only have to prove the rights had lain fallow once in 12 years and the rights revert to the title owner; or prove that you'd been on curtilage where the rights don't apply; or prove you'd been on the land for a purpose other than shooting - and in all those cases, the onus would fall on you to prove the title owner was incorrect. The position of the shooting rights holder is not a secure one when they're not also the title holder.)