New SK trespassing laws coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suka said:
Current Sk trespass act:
http://www.publications.gov.sk.ca/freelaw/documents/English/Statutes/Statutes/T20-2.pdf
Click to expand...

My understanding of laws and acts may not be up to snuff, but the way I understand this Act, particularly section 17(d) is that this Act does not apply to "any individual engaged in lawful hunting, fishing and trapping activities". If I read this correctly, if you have a valid hunting license or are exercising aboriginal hunting rights, the rest of the trespassing act is thrown out the window. I do not agree with this and believe that a land owner has the right to keep anyone off their land providing that they properly post the land as no trespassing or hunting. Am I reading this correctly?

"
 
Before I was a land owner it only made good sense to ask permission to go onto private land. I would never dream of walking into someones house without permission so to me this is no different. Now that I am a land owner I think it only makes sense you ask permission. As a land owner I pay for signs and they get ripped down and I need to pay for new ones. I have had people tell me "it wasn't posted" when it was but the sign was removed. How do you guard against that? On top of that as a land owner I have to carry liability insurance in case somebody comes onto the property without permission and hurts themselves! This to me is unreal but it is todays world. Just my thoughts.
 
These changes should technically almost put and end to the weekend road warrior style of hunting (i.e. driving down the grids until an animal is spotted in a random field, then shooting it). I understand that not everyone has the time to put into baiting, walking the bush, etc. and that sometimes you have to drive the roads to be able to put meat into your freezer when you only get those 2 days off in a hunting season, but it would be nice to eliminate the road warriors that are simply too lazy to get out of the truck.
 
cbh560 said:
Am I reading this correctly?
Click to expand...

That's my interpretation as well, but I'm no expert either. "Unless' the land is posted as I read it.

We're posting our land this fall and locking gates. Simply too many taking liberty, in one case putting deep ruts all across a hay 1/4, which we bounce over twice every round while cutting, tedding, raking, baling and picking bales. That's it. Ours was about the only land for 20 mi that wasn't posted.

edit: not, "just" due to that, but between that and unknown snowmobilers blasting through our yard we've simply had it.
 
cbh560 said:
My understanding of laws and acts may not be up to snuff, but the way I understand this Act, particularly section 17(d) is that this Act does not apply to "any individual engaged in lawful hunting, fishing and trapping activities". If I read this correctly, if you have a valid hunting license or are exercising aboriginal hunting rights, the rest of the trespassing act is thrown out the window. I do not agree with this and believe that a land owner has the right to keep anyone off their land providing that they properly post the land as no trespassing or hunting. Am I reading this correctly?

"
Click to expand...
Indians need permission.
 
cbh560 said:
These changes should technically almost put and end to the weekend road warrior style of hunting (i.e. driving down the grids until an animal is spotted in a random field, then shooting it). I understand that not everyone has the time to put into baiting, walking the bush, etc. and that sometimes you have to drive the roads to be able to put meat into your freezer when you only get those 2 days off in a hunting season, but it would be nice to eliminate the road warriors that are simply too lazy to get out of the truck.
Click to expand...

So again penalize hunters because you don't like their methods. No one needs a handgun either, right?
 
Suka said:
That's my interpretation as well, but I'm no expert either. "Unless' the land is posted as I read it.

We're posting our land this fall and locking gates. Simply too many taking liberty, in one case putting deep ruts all across a hay 1/4, which we bounce over twice every round while cutting, tedding, raking, baling and picking bales. That's it. Ours was about the only land for 20 mi that wasn't posted.

edit: not, "just" due to that, but between that and unknown snowmobilers blasting through our yard we've simply had it.
Click to expand...

The way it should be, you have a problem you fix it.
 
skhunter said:
So again penalize hunters because you don't like their methods. No one needs a handgun either, right?
Click to expand...

Nope, not interested in penalizing anyone. If you read my post I clearly stated that road hunting has its place. I also did not state that I was in favor of ending all road hunting. I simply stated that the change in laws would have an effect on that particular method of hunting. When I stated "it would be nice" to reduce road hunting is because of when someone continuously drives around and through areas that are clearly being hunted on foot or without the use of a vehicle. It's not hard to spot someone in orange. These are also typically the ones driving all over someone's property without permission, simply because they're too lazy to get out of their truck. This will basically spoil it for everyone else, just as it did here:

Suka said:
That's my interpretation as well, but I'm no expert either. "Unless' the land is posted as I read it.

We're posting our land this fall and locking gates. Simply too many taking liberty, in one case putting deep ruts all across a hay 1/4, which we bounce over twice every round while cutting, tedding, raking, baling and picking bales. That's it. Ours was about the only land for 20 mi that wasn't posted.

edit: not, "just" due to that, but between that and unknown snowmobilers blasting through our yard we've simply had it.
Click to expand...
 
So which Act prevails?? The Trespassing Act of 2009 which states that the Tresspassing Act does not apply to those that are lawfully hunting, fishing, or trapping (Section 17(d))? or the Wildlife Act of 1998 that states (Section 41(2)) that no person shall hunt any wildlife on land except in accordance with the posted instructions (ie. no hunting, hunting on foot only, etc.)
 
cbh560 said:
Nope, not interested in penalizing anyone. If you read my post I clearly stated that road hunting has its place. I also did not state that I was in favor of ending all road hunting. I simply stated that the change in laws would have an effect on that particular method of hunting. When I stated "it would be nice" to reduce road hunting is because of when someone continuously drives around and through areas that are clearly being hunted on foot or without the use of a vehicle. It's not hard to spot someone in orange. These are also typically the ones driving all over someone's property without permission, simply because they're too lazy to get out of their truck. This will basically spoil it for everyone else, just as it did here:
Click to expand...

And just as I said handle it on a case by case basis instead of sweeping change that effects everyone.
 
No deer for you - money for the land holder

I read the recent paper put out by the Sask Dept of Justice on the trespass topic. If implemented as proposed, it will pretty much eliminate white tailed deer hunting as Sask residents know it. It is the first step in Texas-Wyoming style hunting where you pay the land holder to enter the land, and it does not matter if game is present or otherwise. The Association of Rural Municipalities has been begging government for years to have this kind of legislation put in place to essentially close down all kinds of hunting and all other activities. The Conservation Officers Association favor this kind of legislation too as they would prefer to direct highway traffic and play hand maiden to the local RCMP with new anti drinking legislation now in place rather than do actual conservation work. There is more. With farms now becoming huge corporate enterprises where 5000 acres of cultivation is pretty much the minimum for a viable grain farm, the paper suggests at special rules for cultivated land. Clearly, the drafters of the government paper don't know that passage over or through cultivated land is often necessary to access even the simplest deer or antelope habitat.

What is proposed in the question format of the paper or at least suggested at in what has to be a clearly biased government paper is a major cultural change change in the way hunting is carried out in the province. The Sask Outfitters Association has long been accused of under the table payments or so called "gentleman's agreements" with farmers and large land holders to post land with hunting with permission only and then have the land holder only provide permission to the outfitter and his client list effectively blocking local hunters from areas where deeded land abuts the assigned outfitting areas. The legislated changes proposed in the paper will essentially make this process legal.

Certainly attitudes to hunting of any kind are changing, but this paper overreaches the changes that are occurring and sets the stage for the hunter to pay twice for a dwindling resource that once belonged to all Saskatchewan people and allows control of that resource to pass into the hands of large land holders and their friends.
 
Last edited:
cbh560 said:
So which Act prevails?? The Trespassing Act of 2009 which states that the Tresspassing Act does not apply to those that are lawfully hunting, fishing, or trapping (Section 17(d))? or the Wildlife Act of 1998 that states (Section 41(2)) that no person shall hunt any wildlife on land except in accordance with the posted instructions (ie. no hunting, hunting on foot only, etc.)
Click to expand...

One does not trump the other. If its not posted "no Hunting or trespassing" Sask laws can be interpreted that you cant be charged. You can be charged if the land owner comes and verbally tells you to leave. The new law coming will require everyone to get written permission from my understanding.
 
skhunter said:
So again penalize hunters because you don't like their methods. No one needs a handgun either, right?
Click to expand...

How are you getting penalised? If you want to hunt on private propriety buy an RM map and make some phone calls. Every year I make up a list of people to call where I'll likely be hunting, phone to get or be denied permission, and hunt accordingly. Its very easy to do, and now I've got a reputation with people as someone who calls ahead and respects the landowner, and sometimes I get a visit from the landowner while hunting to go check a spot out where a nice animal has been hiding all summer.
 
cbh560 said:
So which Act prevails?? The Trespassing Act of 2009 which states that the Tresspassing Act does not apply to those that are lawfully hunting, fishing, or trapping (Section 17(d))? or the Wildlife Act of 1998 that states (Section 41(2)) that no person shall hunt any wildlife on land except in accordance with the posted instructions (ie. no hunting, hunting on foot only, etc.)
Click to expand...

People will now have to phone for permission to lawfully hunt, fish or trap. Both acts would apply to someone who did not have permission to be on the property.
 
Wilbur1005 said:
I read the recent paper put out by the Sask Dept of Justice on the trespass topic. If implemented as proposed, it will pretty much eliminate white tailed deer hunting as Sask residents know it. It is the first step in Texas-Wyoming style hunting where you pay the land holder to enter the land and it does not matter if game is present or otherwise. The Association of Rural Municipalities has been begging government for years to have this kind of legislation put in place to essentially close down all kinds of hunting and all other activities. The Conservation Officers Association favor this kind of legislation too as they would prefer to direct highway traffic and play hand maiden to the local RCMP with new anti drinking legislation now in place rather than do actual conservation work. There is more. With farms now becoming huge corporate enterprises where 5000 acres of cultivation is pretty much the minimum for a viable grain farm, the paper suggests at special rules for cultivated land. Clearly, the drafters of the government paper don't know that passage over or through cultivated land is necessary to access even the simplest deer or anteloper habitat
Click to expand...

There are road allowances every mile east west, and every 2 miles north south in SK. A hunter can stay on the allowance until they get to the area they have permission to be on.
 
Sniper_485 said:
People will now have to phone for permission to lawfully hunt, fish or trap. Both acts would apply to someone who did not have permission to be on the property.
Click to expand...

Trappers have always had to get permission to trap as well as numerous permits from SERM. Wouldn't really effect fishing either as there is crown access to probably 95% of the lakes in Sask and nobody owns so much footage of water frontage.
 
This is the only way to do it! You do not own the land! The farmer does! You want on his land, drop in or make a phone call to meet with him at a time that suits him to discuss!!Whats this world coming to?
Sniper_485 said:
How are you getting penalised? If you want to hunt on private propriety buy an RM map and make some phone calls. Every year I make up a list of people to call where I'll likely be hunting, phone to get or be denied permission, and hunt accordingly. Its very easy to do, and now I've got a reputation with people as someone who calls ahead and respects the landowner, and sometimes I get a visit from the landowner while hunting to go check a spot out where a nice animal has been hiding all summer.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom