Problems with Wild Life Trust

[terry white]

Hi Lads, has anyone had any dealings with Dorset Wildlife Trust?
Seems they want to stop us flying on a farmers land which adjoins their land.They say that we cannot use their air space over their land as it frightens the birds.The farmer is in full agreement with our sport and I have it in writing that we may use his land at any time.
Any budding legal wiz kids out their that can help please. Terry

[Geoff Pearce]

What the hell is up with people or cretins? Don't they know the birds fly with us in the same thermals? Or is it because the birds are frightened
So how does this work out all over the country with full size?
If they speak to me they better be very afraid! I won't be PC

Geoff

[Barry_Cole]

As I understand it, a land owner has no jurisdiction over the air above his land.

The CAA control who flies where.

BC

[Ray Watts]

I remember back in the 80's at Beaulieu Aerodrome in the New Forest when the Twitchers said that the Model Planes were frightening the Ground Nesting Dartford Warblers, especially at nesting time. The strange thing is that this is a full time, 7 days a week model flying place, and the birds were still there. However, when each year it was time for the nests to come alive and the young were hatching, the Twitchers would turn up by the coachload to walk around the heath to photograph them.
Now, I'm not sure, but if I were a ground nesting bird, and a 6 foot tall, Barbour wearing, multi camera laden human was towering over me to take photographs of my babies, then I would be pretty scared, never mind the occasional toy plane at 200 feet altitude in the distance. Or am I being cynical here.
Anyway, after a long campaign by the Twitchers, sense prevailed as everybody realised that the birds were still there, and as far as I am aware, they still are, and so are the Model Planes.
People get a bit above themselves sometimes and think that everything is theirs for the taking or for the use of. I'm sure we could all coexist if we tried.
Ray

[Steve Fraquet]

If it's any consolation a couple of years ago we were flying on Cox Tor Dartmoor with 7 pairs of buzzards and it certainly looked like they enjoyed our company. Oh and by the way the buzzards ar still there.

[Nigel Argall]

I believe Barry and Ray are both right.
First, you don't have any rights over the airspace above your property so can't charge Flybe for flying their planes over your house or even stop them.
It is a strong argument to point out that birds can go anywhere so if they stay near a flying site they really can't be that bothered.

[jimbo]

Are there any other problems? Walkers, dogs, litter? Maybe its an excuse? Is that the slope near the duck pond?

[Ray_Eggleston]

Terry,

Is it worth you getting in touch with the BMFA over your problem. I am sure they must have experience in dealing with similar situations. Just a thought!

[terry white]

Thanks for your inputs so far lads.

Yes Jimbo it is our South east slope directly up from the east creche duck pond.

Ray, It may come to that we have a meeting with the DWT at the end f this month. However I like to use the soft approach first. Ter

[terry white]

Interesting??


How much of the airspace above your home do you own?
By Brian Palmer

National Geographic photographer George Steinmetz was arrested for trespass on June 28 after circling his paraglider over a Kansas cattle feedlot, according to an Associated Press report published Wednesday. Local officials say Steinmetz didn’t have permission to launch his flyer from the property or to take photos from the air. Can you keep people from gliding over your property?

Up to a point. Before the advent of air travel, landowners owned an infinitely tall column of air rising above their plot. (The Latin doctrine was Cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum, or “whose is the soil, his it is up to the sky.”) In 1946 the Supreme Court acknowledged that the air had become a “public highway,” but a landowner still had dominion over “at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.” In that case the court held that a plane flying just 83 feet in the air—the commotion was literally scaring the plaintiff’s chickens to death—represented an invasion of property. The justices declined to precisely define the height at which ownership rights end. Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground. Paragliders and hang gliders can easily soar above that height, so your ability to exclude a snooping gliding enthusiast appears to be limited. (It should be noted that the vast majority of complaints about trespassing hang gliders result from their landing on, not flying over, private property.)

The upward boundaries of private property may be changing. The federal government is considering lowering the floor of navigable airspace below 500 feet to accommodate surveillance drones, which sometimes travel at lower altitudes. The move has alarmed some local governments. Earlier this month the City Council of Northampton, Mass., voted unanimously to adopt a resolution opposing any attempt to expand navigable airspace. In February the Charlottesville, Va., City Council called for a two-year moratorium on drones in the state.

Government drones get most of the media attention, but privately owned models, which are now affordable for many groups and individuals, are becoming a flashpoint. Paparazzi, media organizations, or just about anyone who wants a look at private land will soon have the technology. FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta predicts that there could be 30,000 licensed drones by 2020.

In 2012 the animal rights group SHowing Animals Respect and Kindness flew a drone over a planned pigeon shoot at Broxton Bridge Plantation in South Carolina, causing the hunters to abandon the shoot. A dispute arose over whether the drone was above public or private land, but the hunters shot it down before fleeing the scene. The drone owners vowed to sue for destruction of their property.