Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.1979, Blaðsíða 36

44
Land Tenure, Fowling Rights, and Sharing of the Catch
participated for a number of days corresponding to the size
of his lot of the total land.
The sharing of the catch finds paralleles in pilot whaling.
Formerly anyone present at the kill received an equal share
after damages and reimbursement for certain services had been
paid. Today, in some places, those actually taking part in the
kill share half of the catch, while the second half is divided
among the inhabitants of the whaling districts. Evidently this
change represents an adaption to modern means of transport.
It is now possible for a large number of people from a large
area to reach the place of killing before the actual kill has
taken place (Joensen, 1976).
Also, in peat-cutting there were agreements of rotation in
some villages making up for differences between good and less
yielding turbaries.
Conclusion
As would be expected, ownership and fowling rights are
closely related, the owner always being able to fowl on his
own land. However, older rules demanded that one owner
could not fowl alone on land in common ownership, unless he
had the permission of all co-owners.
Ownership and, rights according to topographical position.
Within a single area of fowling cliffs ownership and fowling
rights may vary considerably, and conditions in MiSvágur as
related by Rasmussen (1949) seem representative. Puffin
catching is divided between individual shares of the høur ex-
cept for Urðin (i. e. the debris at the foot of the cliffs) which
was free for anyone to fowl provided that landpartur was
paid. Any land tenant, however small his share, could catch
hellufuglur ( i. e. birds sitting under the cliffs), while anybody,
owner or not, could catch birds flying out from the cliffs
( omanfleyg).
Ownership and rights according to fowling methods. On the
other hand, ownership is also related to the methods by which