UK Catapult Laws
- Thread starter Emdiesse
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
IANAL, but I simply don't believe that.
For that would be true, it would have to be possible to prove that someone couldn't hit the animal - proving a negative is extremely difficult.
geforce83, it has nothing whatsoever to do with restricting access to bows - in fact, the reverse used to be true and it was an offense *not* to practise with your bow
so.. is it legal to hunt with a catty on public land here in Britain? i.e no permission directly from anyone, not on private land, killing the animal humanely etc etc etc
What do you mean by "public land"? Almost all land is owned by someone - land might be National Park, common land etc. but it is still owned.
Its difficult to determine what actually constitutes "public land" is in this country, if indeed there is any at all. Even places that dont necessarily have any specific owner, such as foreshore, common land and abandoned/nobody-knows-who-owns-it land, i believe may still technically fall under the ownership of the Crown.
Can you hunt with a catapult (or any other legal hunting tool) on public land? I dont think there is a right or wrong answer to that question really. To get a definitive yes or no you would probably have to go through a legal minefield and a lot of test cases in court. I say, save yourself the hassle and stick to hunting with a catapult on private permissions. Or at least do it somewhere so remote that you wont be caught.
I don't know the technical term but it's fairly obvious what I mean. Land that isn't privately owned, the land that we as the public are allowed to enter and camp on, have fires, play in etc..
So basically, you can hunt with one only if you have permission specifically to do so on the land you are on..? just like with a airgun?
There is almost no land that isn't owned by an individual, company or organisation. Some land has rights associated with it that the landowner cannot change (e.g. commoners rights), some land has access rights, planning laws and conservation rules associated with it (National Parks). The land isn't owned by the public though and the only rights available are those enshrined in law - and only then to the people granted those rights (e.g. only certain individuals have commoners rights). Hunting rights - unless sold or leased - rest with the landowner and you need permission to hunt. There are numerous laws governing land ownership (e.g. below the high tide line the sea shore belongs to the Crown), however, to my knowledge, all land has an owner with whom authority to grant rights to that land rest. It may be different in Scotland or other countries of course - but that is my understanding of English law.
EdS
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
public land is just land open to the public. It is still owned by someone and permission is still required to many things on it. You are unlikely to get permission to hunt on public land (except large organised moorland shoots etc).
The owners of "public land"are generally public bodies ie council, Gov departments or charities ie National Trust, Woodland Trust.
The owners of "public land"are generally public bodies ie council, Gov departments or charities ie National Trust, Woodland Trust.
I think common sense applies to this one. Anywhere where the general public are wandering about willy nilly - it's not going to be legal. No analysing laws or any other twoddle is necessary. Just use common sense...
I think there is a very simple answer to a number of these questions
1. If you want to hunt birds or mammals, you need landowners permission to do so
2. Certain hunting methods are flat out illegal in the UK e.g. bows, self locking snares and toothed spring traps.
3. Whatever your hunting method of choice, if you use it in the wrong way, or on the wrong quarry and cause animal suffering, you are liable to prosecution.
Trying to find loopholes or asking why things are the way they are is pretty pointless. That is the law - rants based upon wishing to use a type of hunting tool or disliking the current laws on land ownership serve only to illustrate a political prejudice, they don't alter the law as it stands. If you dislike property ownership, laws on angling and fish traps, or the rules on taking game, take it up with your political representative or join a sporting rights body (I suggest BASC) - and whilst your at it, please ask them to give us back our handguns
Red
1. If you want to hunt birds or mammals, you need landowners permission to do so
2. Certain hunting methods are flat out illegal in the UK e.g. bows, self locking snares and toothed spring traps.
3. Whatever your hunting method of choice, if you use it in the wrong way, or on the wrong quarry and cause animal suffering, you are liable to prosecution.
Trying to find loopholes or asking why things are the way they are is pretty pointless. That is the law - rants based upon wishing to use a type of hunting tool or disliking the current laws on land ownership serve only to illustrate a political prejudice, they don't alter the law as it stands. If you dislike property ownership, laws on angling and fish traps, or the rules on taking game, take it up with your political representative or join a sporting rights body (I suggest BASC) - and whilst your at it, please ask them to give us back our handguns
Red
I've have a quick read of that act. Nope, nothing in there about you being required to prove you could hit the animal.
The act is all about avoiding 'unnecessary' suffering. What constitutes 'unnecessary' would depend very much on the circumstances and actions.
If someone shoots an animal 10 times and it is still writhing on the ground in agony, they would be open to prosecution. That is not the same as needing to prove you can hit what you aim for.
Forgive me for digging further into this issue, but of interest, where do you think the law stands on hunting with an atlatl, spear or bola? I know game such as deer would be out of the question as there are calibre restrictions on them, but what about vermin? From what i can see, The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes no mention of those items.
I dont have any particular interest in hunting with such things myself, im just curious really.
I believe that duty is still valid in the lawbooks (though obviously not enforced anymore. Which is a shame tbh). Well im okay regardless, because i do practice with my bow in the garden almost every weekend
I dont have any particular interest in hunting with such things myself, im just curious really.
I believe that duty is still valid in the lawbooks (though obviously not enforced anymore. Which is a shame tbh). Well im okay regardless, because i do practice with my bow in the garden almost every weekend
I'm guessing, but if you were seen and someone complained, you might fall foul of the "unnecessary suffering" clause.
It's left open - people don't get prosecuted for killing a rat with a makeshift club. Spearing one would be similar - unless you ended up spearing it 10 times.
TBH, although I've never hunted with a spear, I think it can't be much different to using a bow and arrow, and hence quite difficult to make a quick kill.
What do you think I am suggesting?
I strongly suspect you are reading something that isn't there.
As I've said already, the act is all about not inflicting unnecessary suffering. That applies no matter what method of killing you use, whether it be a rifle, poison or something else.
Similar threads
