New Sask land access rules

What ain't right? The fact that people have the audacity to ask permission to hunt on land they don't own?

I agree that complaining about not having free reign on private property is stupid. But then again, so is making a big stink about asking permission.

I guess things are a bit different here with the poaching, "hunting" and massive amounts of rural crime and how land owners are being treated by law enforcement and the system and what perpetrators are getting away with.

The audacity does surprise me a bit of some people.
 
I guess things are a bit different here with the poaching, "hunting" and massive amounts of rural crime and how land owners are being treated by law enforcement and the system and what perpetrators are getting away with.

The audacity does surprise me a bit of some people.

Poaching and rural crime are pretty much the opposite of asking for permission though??
 
Poaching and rural crime are pretty much the opposite of asking for permission though??

Yes, but it is a collective effect on the land owners.

And asking permission doesn't mean that the hunter will respect the land.Many land owners I know have granted permission only to find that it winds up being not as noble individuals you expected.Goose dugouts left unfilled, garbage all over hell's half acre and the worst wanting granting permission to an individual for him so he could teach his kid and experience hunting, well six buddies and multiple trucks and trailers later they were asked to leave."but you gave me permission!" ,"yes, for you and your kid not a guiding expedition"
 
Is your land posted?

Not currently. It was in the past. People just tore the signs down or shot them full of holes. Its why i like the idea of having people by law have to get permission. I actually don't have a huge issue with people hunting on my land. I'd just like to see them be a little more respectful. I would expect people to be smart enough to not drive through a standing barley crop. Same thing happened in a canola field a few years ago. Drove multiple vehicles through standing canola to drag a dead moose out.
 
Yes, but it is a collective effect on the land owners.

And asking permission doesn't mean that the hunter will respect the land. Many land owners I know have granted permission only to find that it winds up being not as noble individuals you expected.Goose dugouts left unfilled, garbage all over hell's half acre and the worst wanting granting permission to an individual for him so he could teach his kid and experience hunting, well six buddies and multiple trucks and trailers later they were asked to leave."but you gave me permission!" ,"yes, for you and your kid not a guiding expedition"

You're entirely correct. And that's why they have the right to refuse permission, or revoke permission. If you want to ensure that doesn't happen, then you don't give anyone permission on your land.

Of course, thats also not how everyone acts. I've hunted private land a few times. You wouldn't have even known I was there if not for the bear spine/ribs in the bush on the edge of the property (which is where the owner wanted it).
 
You're entirely correct. And that's why they have the right to refuse permission, or revoke permission. If you want to ensure that doesn't happen, then you don't give anyone permission on your land.

Of course, thats also not how everyone acts. I've hunted private land a few times. You wouldn't have even known I was there if not for the bear spine/ribs in the bush on the edge of the property (which is where the owner wanted it).

I unfortunately think demographics play a huge role in this.And I also agree , so much is dependent on the individual but it seems in this area there is more delinquents than there is noble folks.

I am quite certain there are areas where people get along quite well and have next to zero issues with any of it.

I even know land owners who disrespect other land owners, what is the matter with those ones?

Mind you, I've also seen land owners chasing hunters down on crown land.

It takes all types.
 
I was hoping it was. Yesterday we had a cow and calf moose, a group of mulies with two nice bucks, and some whitetail running around the home quarter. The road runs on two sides of that quarter and the last thing we need is rifle bullets flying over the house and shop. So far the bird hunters have been gracious and asked permission and we allowed them on the other quarters as no real risk to anyone plus never had an issue with them.

As for deer/moose hunters that is another story. But as you elude to it isn't good for the blood pressure to talk about that.


And if any of you guys are looking for a moose I hear there was one on the Broadway bridge yesterday is Saskatoon. lol....

Not even archery is allowed inside city limits. :(
 
Not currently. It was in the past. People just tore the signs down or shot them full of holes. Its why i like the idea of having people by law have to get permission. I actually don't have a huge issue with people hunting on my land. I'd just like to see them be a little more respectful. I would expect people to be smart enough to not drive through a standing barley crop. Same thing happened in a canola field a few years ago. Drove multiple vehicles through standing canola to drag a dead moose out.

I don't own land but I very much dislike people doing that sort of thing because it pisses off landowners and makes them less likely to allow hunting on their land.

I'm the city-raised child of urban working-class immigrants from U.K., didn't get into hunting until I was in my thirties. The first fellow who mentored me took me to Crown land and to private land for which he said he had permission. He didn't mention that the law allows us to hunt on private land that isn't posted, I just assumed permission was required. Later I would go hunting with an older friend, he explained that to me. He's a road-hunter (much older than I am, though I don't think that's the only reason he hunts that way.) I prefer to hunt alone, afoot. I enjoyed going with him when we didn't get a chance at anything, still got to see a lot and hear his stories, didn't have the uncomfortable feeling that even if the law says we can go on someone's land, they might prefer that we didn't.

Both of these mentors made it clear, and this seemed self-explanatory to me, "you don't shoot an animal in someone's crop, you are going to have to walk or drive over the crop to retrieve."
 
Not currently. It was in the past. People just tore the signs down or shot them full of holes. Its why i like the idea of having people by law have to get permission. I actually don't have a huge issue with people hunting on my land. I'd just like to see them be a little more respectful. I would expect people to be smart enough to not drive through a standing barley crop. Same thing happened in a canola field a few years ago. Drove multiple vehicles through standing canola to drag a dead moose out.

Those signs did require by law that people obtained permission. What makes you think this new law will have a different effect on those types of people?
 
You put in a claim, they send out an adjuster. The adjuster determines how many acres and the extent of the damage.

The farmer is then paid for every bushel lost.

Simple process.

We have that for coyotes but the process is to long, time consuming and the pay out is poor. I dont believe it is that simple and I dont think the payout is close to the damage done.
I just read the program, its as I thought, full of garbage that makes it so onerous that most will not apply. I like this one the best. Wildlife damage compensation is available on claims $150 and over. or this one. To qualify for crop loss compensation, producers are required to allow hunters reasonable access to farmland where wildlife damage occurs.
 
Last edited:
I don't own land but I very much dislike people doing that sort of thing because it pisses off landowners and makes them less likely to allow hunting on their land.

I'm the city-raised child of urban working-class immigrants from U.K., didn't get into hunting until I was in my thirties. The first fellow who mentored me took me to Crown land and to private land for which he said he had permission. He didn't mention that the law allows us to hunt on private land that isn't posted, I just assumed permission was required. Later I would go hunting with an older friend, he explained that to me. He's a road-hunter (much older than I am, though I don't think that's the only reason he hunts that way.) I prefer to hunt alone, afoot. I enjoyed going with him when we didn't get a chance at anything, still got to see a lot and hear his stories, didn't have the uncomfortable feeling that even if the law says we can go on someone's land, they might prefer that we didn't.

Both of these mentors made it clear, and this seemed self-explanatory to me, "you don't shoot an animal in someone's crop, you are going to have to walk or drive over the crop to retrieve."

I wish more people had your attitude about land access. I’ve found most people to be pretty decent about it, but there’s always a few idiots who ruin for everyone else. I’ve just never understood why people find it so hard to just ask for permission. I’ve done it myself numerous times when I hunt outside my home area. It’s really not that complicated.
 
Do you mind if I come to your place and use your BBQ , suntan on your lawn and bang your wife without your knowledge?

Private means just that , private.

P.S. - I'm not even a land owner.

Private is private yes but I ask permission to hunt it. I'm not trespassing. Need my bbq? Sure, just ask. Bang my wife? Not without seeing pictures of yours first and if suitable we will do a swap.
 
Those signs did require by law that people obtained permission. What makes you think this new law will have a different effect on those types of people?


It might not have much effect at all. The idiots will still be idiots. But if the law had some teeth and some of those idiots got some fines or some type of penalty maybe they’d catch on eventually. And now they can’t make the claim that the land wasn’t posted after they just knocked down the sign before accessing the land. I also don’t have to deal with signs at every access point on all my land. That’s a pile of signs to deal with and replace as they get full of holes.
 
We have that for coyotes but the process is to long, time consuming and the pay out is poor. I dont believe it is that simple and I dont think the payout is close to the damage done.
I just read the program, its as I thought, full of garbage that makes it so onerous that most will not apply. I like this one the best. Wildlife damage compensation is available on claims $150 and over. or this one. To qualify for crop loss compensation, producers are required to allow hunters reasonable access to farmland where wildlife damage occurs.

Nothing like that in the regs here. Predator claims same way. Make a claim, adjuster comes out, determines animal was killed by predator, payment for value of animal.
 
You can always ask the government for the correct answer on this, at least in sk. As of sept there was no new laws. For people in sk, the law was made in 1950s I believe for allowing hunters on land. It maybe not the same in other provinces, but if you move to sk and people go on your land that is why
 
I don't know why SERM is worried about precedent setting case because even before all of these changes native hunters still needed permission to hunt on private land when they are exercising their treaty rights. At least that is the interpretation of the laws that I have always been familiar with.

They want unfetterred right to “travel the land”. Pesky Setters don’t want to give it to them but the right bleeding heart judge might see it different.
 
Big problem in sask, finding out who owns the land. “Sask 3243567” or “China south land company” on rm map with no contact info makes for tough tracking. As a landowner, admittedly only a 1/4 of awesome hunting land, but surrounded by Hutterite land which I have permission- expanding my hunting 160 acres to literally townships, I’m golden. And so is my family and friends. But as saskhunter mentioned, for the most part, when the crops are off, nobody gives a ####e about hunters. This is only going to shut down the weekend chicken and whitetail hunters from the city, that don’t have contacts, nor the time to develop them. They will sell their guns, not take the kids out, eventually vote ndp or liberal... and then what happens to us?
I’ve seen my share of slob hunters, maybe I will see less with this new law. But I will also see less of the super polite Russians (?) and Asian hunters that I have run into the last few years. Gents that a guy might share a good spot and perhaps a beer with after the hunt. I worry about the future of firearms ownership, it’s tied to hunter numbers. We should be encouraging hunting, not restricting it.
 
The trespass law will ruin upland and white tailed deer hunting as we now know it. As well, it is the first step for farmers and especially big greedy ranchers raised on government handouts with crown land to begin charging access fees like their cousins in Texas and Colorado. Outfitter organizations like the idea too as they can now tie up large areas with white wash agreements limiting access. Also too, now, a very large portion of land and much of it former crown land is owed by foreign investors. Try phoning some the holding companies you now find listed on the municipal maps, and if you get a phone pickup it could be from some one in South Africa or Beijing China. Having complained, I fully understand why anybody wants to get as much as they can for nothing in these times. It's the American way. But, it will make it harder for the hunter wanting a day hunt to simply trundle out into the vast plains of southern Saskatchewan and shoot at a few grouse and be home by dark.

I could post a rant to counter you rant , but I am to damn tired. , I will just say a farmer or rancher is not to sell their land so some city dude can go shot a dear, or cow sometimes/ Is that what you are saying?
 
Back
Top Bottom