Sk trespass law being changed; just a heads up

Status
Not open for further replies.
skhunter said:
So like gun laws, we punish the respectful guys while those who don't respect the private property now.

Who do you think it will deter more?

Also could you define "disrespectful to others private property"
Click to expand...

I can't comment on your first statement because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I hope it will deter everyone from entering private property without consent of the owner. It is basic common sense. Why would you not want to ask permission?

I see I have to choose my words carefully with you.V:I:

Instead of disrespectful, which seems to go down the road of "hurt feelings" reports. I'll use the words blatant disregard. Which would refer to gates, fences, trees, crops, grass, etc...

The trespassing law to me is about protecting the bottom line in agriculture. Which is important in this province.
With recreational property, the law is there for people to hopefully get along.

I have nothing to comment on rural residential property.

That's just how I see it.
 
Last edited:
skhunter said:
So any hunter who uses the land legally now without permission will not be charged if he does the same after the law is changed?
Click to expand...

If he doesn’t have permission then he’s neither legal nor a hunter, he’s a poacher and a trespasser.

Please define “the land”.
 
skhunter said:
Already have laws against vandalism and theft. Why do we need more laws? Unless this law has nothing to do with vandalism or theft and is all to do with hurt feelings.
Click to expand...

You’re literally the only person in Saskatchewan that keeps trying the “hurt feelings” argument and it’s beyond lame.

Next I’m sure you’ll start into your obsession with ##### size. It’s all very odd.
 
sask378 said:
I can't comment on your first statement because it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I hope it will deter everyone from entering private property without consent of the owner. It is basic common sense. Why would you not want to ask permission?

I see I have to choose my words carefully with you.V:I:

Instead of disrespectful, which seems to go down the road of "hurt feelings" reports. I'll use the words blatant disregard. Which would refer to gates, fences, trees, crops, grass, etc...

The trespassing law to me is about protecting the bottom line in agriculture. Which is important in this province.
With recreational property, the law is there for people to hopefully get along.

I have nothing to comment on rural residential property.

That's just how I see it.
Click to expand...

The law punishes the guy wh shoots the deer in the field and picks it up and goes home doing no harm to the property. While those who are willing to break existing laws by doing damage are not deterred by one more law.

For the very example you cited of the guy who spots the deer, shoots it and takes it home doing no damage.

Blatant disregard causing damage is already against the law (ie. vandalism/negligence)
 
leverboy said:
I think it has been mentioned more than a few times already... crime is actually an issue for many rural landowners in SK. You evidently are not affected by this, and I am happy for that.
Click to expand...

Tell me how this new laws deters criminals that are already willing to break vandalism and theft laws.

Crime is a issue here to, but the crime isn't being committed by the guys out to hunt deer.
 
I grew up in Sask. and remember the 70's and 80's when it was wide open see and shoot. Back then you generally knew whose land you were hunting on, as well as who didn't want any hunting on their land.
You respected that and it worked just fine.
Getting permission to hunt on private land shouldn't be a big deal. Either you are allowed to or you are not.
Respect the feelings of the land owner. Be polite. If the answer is no then thank them for their time and move on.
Leave your name and cell number and maybe next week or month or year, things will have changed and you'll get a more positive answer.

It can go both ways.
 
I must be old fashioned. I would never dream of putting one single toe on someone else’s property without asking permission first. I don’t need a law to tell me that is the right thing to do.
 
Anyone else think a plots system like North Dakota has would be a good idea? Cover some of the costs for land owners that are willing to open their land to the public and upgrade the habitat and have easily available online maps to show which land is included. In the south east there's not much for wildlife lands and the pfras are trampled to hell by the cattle and not open until Nov 1st. Seems like lots of farmers are burning their sloughs these days so what little cover that's there is disappearing.
 
sask31 said:
Anyone else think a plots system like North Dakota has would be a good idea? Cover some of the costs for land owners that are willing to open their land to the public and upgrade the habitat and have easily available online maps to show which land is included. In the south east there's not much for wildlife lands and the pfras are trampled to hell by the cattle and not open until Nov 1st. Seems like lots of farmers are burning their sloughs these days so what little cover that's there is disappearing.
Click to expand...

Who covers the costs? Government or hunters.
 
I do not believe that is where we are headed in Saskatchewan. SERM is adamantly opposed to charging for access to game animals, a public resource.

Charging for hunting access is illegal in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Huge swaths of land in Saskatchewan and Alberta are leased Crown land, actually belonging to the Province, but leased for agricultural activity.

The Conservation Reserve Program is funded by USDA, the Federal Government. It is intended to take environmentally sensitive land out of production, which has the benefit of providing habitat for game animals.
 
skhunter said:
Who covers the costs? Government or hunters.
Click to expand...

Hunters through the tags and draws. Same as wildlife lands currently is. They have 760,000 acres covered this year. Nobody wants to sell land these days, with the owner keeping control of their land and having it foot access only I think plenty of farmers would actually go for it.
 
saskbooknut said:
I do not believe that is where we are headed in Saskatchewan. SERM is adamantly opposed to charging for access to game animals, a public resource.

Charging for hunting access is illegal in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Huge swaths of land in Saskatchewan and Alberta are leased Crown land, actually belonging to the Province, but leased for agricultural activity.

The Conservation Reserve Program is funded by USDA, the Federal Government. It is intended to take environmentally sensitive land out of production, which has the benefit of providing habitat for game animals.
Click to expand...

You would be paying for use of the property, just like the farmer pays for leased land for agriculture.

It is illegal now, but if we are going to change laws and treat the land exactly like all other private property then farmers should push to have the same right to charge for use just like anything else they own.
 
What's it cost for a quarter section in this province?

50K from scrub bush ?150K for average crop/pasture land? 300K plus for the premium creme-de-la-creme? I've seen and heard of higher.

Think about that, the owners of these areas had to either buy or finance these amounts(unless inherited which it still doesn't matter)so why should they not feel protective on this property? I see areas all the time that look like quad rally's were held where "hunters" did their thing.

How bent out of shape would folks get if stranger just wandered into their yards and patios to hang out, have a BBQ , use the bathroom , wreck the lawn and leave a bunch of garbage behind?

Like I said before, either hunt crown, get permission or buy your own, you can't just "use".

The entitled elitist society is becoming more and more prevalent.
 
Kelly Timoffee said:
What's it cost for a quarter section in this province?

50K from scrub bush ?150K for average crop/pasture land? 300K plus for the premium creme-de-la-creme? I've seen and heard of higher.

Think about that, the owners of these areas had to either buy or finance these amounts(unless inherited which it still doesn't matter)so why should they not feel protective on this property? I see areas all the time that look like quad rally's were held where "hunters" did their thing.

How bent out of shape would folks get if stranger just wandered into their yards and patios to hang out, have a BBQ , use the bathroom , wreck the lawn and leave a bunch of garbage behind?

Like I said before, either hunt crown, get permission or buy your own, you can't just "use".
The entitled elitist society is becoming more and more prevalent.
Click to expand...

If you want it to be pay to play on private land based on what it's worth today how about you pay back the costs of the roads around it based on today's construction costs. The cities subsidize your power bills because you actually cost money to provide power to because of the lower population density of the rurals and how much line is needed to get there and the upkeep on it.The carrying cost of the land isn't crazy from what my co-workers that own land tell me. It isn't being devalued by people walking on it. If it's pasture or crop you're making money off of it throughout the year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom