New Sask land access rules

[duncansuds]

Although I agree with the purpose of your statement.... our laws do effect legal gun owners. double tap

 

[heronfish]

I'm a firm believer that if you claim crop damage from public funds but DO NOT allow the public to hunt and reduce game on your properties, that you should not be compensated at all.

Where does this end?
Does a landowner have to allow everyone to hunt? Or just his nephew from the city?

 

[scruffee]

As long as the government on behalf of the public makes it illegal for the farmer to reduce the population himself, the government /public is responsible for damages done by those animals.

So essentially, the landowner should reap all rewards; kill more of the wildlife and receive compensations from public resources while the public cannot? Should the government compensate you when they put regulations on things like certain pesticides, etc, to avoid destroying the environment which in turn makes you less competitive with farming industries where the Gov't doesn't give a crap?

We clearly don't agree on this issue and it's fine. My stance on this is that landowners who complain and receive compensations but are greedy (you know damn well those guys are out there, they don't want other guys shooting THEIR big bucks) and prevent hunters reasonable access, shouldn't get crap from public funds.

 

[skhunter]

Last I looked, there were several laws on the books that allowed property owners to shoot free running dogs, under specific conditions. It's sort of a bad example to be bringing up, really.

If you refuse to take advantage of, or even more particularly, actively prevent, access to Hunters who could otherwise contribute to solving the crop damage problem, either by population control or by the deterrent effect of their presence, I figure you should be a lot lower of a priority as far as getting public monies for the resultant damage. Sorta like a lot of other things in life. You should be required to demonstrate due diligence, if you wish to get compensation.

Except the law prevents me from exterminating those animal so they can be enjoyed by the public. Remove government regulation and public from my operation and I won't need compensation.

 

[skhunter]

I’ve posted my land for years. Almost every year the signs just magically disappear. It would make a lot more sense for those landowners that want to allow full access to their land to post it as such. I guarantee a sign stating “access allowed-permission not required” would never be illegally removed.

As for fewer hunters this year- I noticed a lot more out than usual. We didn’t have near as much snow in our area in November and when word got out there were a lot of hunters showing up here from other areas.

If you want evidence that trespassing laws do not affect hunter numbers, just look at every other jurisdiction in North America that have required permission to hunt on private property for decades. There are a lot more hunters per capita in Alberta where they have had strict access laws for at least 50 years than we have in Saskatchewan. Long term we will be just fine. Don’t forget there’s lots of public land to hunt.

Do you think the new law will stop those who tear down signs from trespassing on your land?

 

[skhunter]

So essentially, the landowner should reap all rewards; kill more of the wildlife and receive compensations from public resources while the public cannot? Should the government compensate you when they put regulations on things like certain pesticides, etc, to avoid destroying the environment which in turn makes you less competitive with farming industries where the Gov't doesn't give a crap?

We clearly don't agree on this issue and it's fine. My stance on this is that landowners who complain and receive compensations but are greedy (you know damn well those guys are out there, they don't want other guys shooting THEIR big bucks) and prevent hunters reasonable access, shouldn't get crap from public funds.

Not both, but either or. Either get government restriction out of my way or pay compensation, not both.

So you believe you should have first chance at the animals on my land over me? Wow, entitled or what.

Those big bucks belong to the farmer as much as they do you. Difference is the farmer feeds and waters those big bucks year round on their land at a cost. Yet you somehow think you are entitled to those big bucks for free.

 

[scruffee]

Not both, but either or. Either get government restriction out of my way or pay compensation, not both.

So you believe you should have first chance at the animals on my land over me? Wow, entitled or what.

Those big bucks belong to the farmer as much as they do you. Difference is the farmer feeds and waters those big bucks year round on their land at a cost. Yet you somehow think you are entitled to those big bucks for free.

When did I say I was entitled to anything, sounds like I wouldn't want to hunt your land anyway so you get all the chances at YOUR big buck, happy? Giving you public dollars in return for some public access is not entitlement. Having the public fund your crop damage without you being willing to let hunters on your land so they don't shoot the big bucks IS entitlement. If you want ALL the chances at animals on your land, don't let anyone in but I personally believe you shouldn't be entitled to public funds since you want all the big bucks to yourself. No one is taking any chances away from you, that big buck can easily get killed on the next quarter over. It sounds like you are the entitled one. I really don't care, I'll probably shoot YOUR big buck anyway when I get access to your neighbour's property.

 

[Suka]

If you want evidence that trespassing laws do not affect hunter numbers, just look at every other jurisdiction in North America that have required permission to hunt on private property for decades. There are a lot more hunters per capita in Alberta where they have had strict access laws for at least 50 years than we have in Saskatchewan. Long term we will be just fine. Don’t forget there’s lots of public land to hunt.

This. ^^^

Guys are just upset because it's new and those that have never asked for permission feel slighted.

In Ab you get caught on someones land without permission expect to get your A$$ kicked. It's Always been that way, and AB hunting is a hell of a lot better than here.

Guys here will get used to it in a couple yrs and the complaining will stop. No it will not stop poachers, but it does slow them down.

 

[skhunter]

When did I say I was entitled to anything, sounds like I wouldn't want to hunt your land anyway so you get all the chances at YOUR big buck, happy? Giving you public dollars in return for some public access is not entitlement. Having the public fund your crop damage without you being willing to let hunters on your land so they don't shoot the big bucks IS entitlement. If you want ALL the chances at animals on your land, don't let anyone in but I personally believe you shouldn't be entitled to public funds since you want all the big bucks to yourself. No one is taking any chances away from you, that big buck can easily get killed on the next quarter over. It sounds like you are the entitled one. I really don't care, I'll probably shoot YOUR big buck anyway when I get access to your neighbour's property.

So if you are OK with public funds for public access then you must be OK with private funds for private access (which is the way it should be) but there again the government /public makes that impossible.

What if I allow hunting on my land but antlerless only, should I get damage compensation?

 

[coyoteking]

Do you think the new law will stop those who tear down signs from trespassing on your land?

Does any law stop people from committing crimes?

No, but It’ll make it much easier to charge the ####suckers. When caught they will no longer be able to play dumb.

You seem to like no trespassing signs. You seem to think the expense of installing and maintaining them is not a problem. I suggest after the trespass law changes that you install and maintain open access signs on all of your property, then everyone will be happy. Problem solved!

 

[sask378]

So if you are OK with public funds for public access then you must be OK with private funds for private access (which is the way it should be) but there again the government /public makes that impossible.

What if I allow hunting on my land but antlerless only, should I get damage compensation?

Now were getting somewhere.

 

[Super Mario]

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.

That’s an interesting perspective. There really should be be any foreign ownership of Canadian lands anyways but that’s bother issue.

 

[skhunter]

Does any law stop people from committing crimes?

No, but It’ll make it much easier to charge the ####suckers. When caught they will no longer be able to play dumb.

You seem to like no trespassing signs. You seem to think the expense of installing and maintaining them is not a problem. I suggest after the trespass law changes that you install and maintain open access signs on all of your property, then everyone will be happy. Problem solved!

I have already informed my area RCMP and game wardens that no licensed hunters are to be charged with trespassing.

 

[TT1900]

Remove government regulation and public from my operation and I won't need compensation.

Be careful what you wish for. Remove government regulation from the agriculture industry and it'll all be dead/non-Canadian within a year. Government protection and subsidies for agriculture make Bombardier look like child's play.

At the end of the day people just need to play nice and for the most part I think they do. Most farmers are hardworking people just trying to run a successful business. Most hunters are respectful and just looking to put meat in the freezer. There are a-holes in both groups but they are the minority. I've lived in SK for the better part of the last decade and haven't had much trouble finding willing landowners. I'm polite, I always ask permission, and I make sure to leave minimal impact on their operations. Some I have actually struck up legitimate friendships with. Amazing what happens when you just go and talk to people, though this year is arguably a little more uneasy.

While the foreign owned/non-local owned land is a PITA, overall I think the change is reasonable. The farmers who want to keep game for themselves aren't going to affect anyone's livelihood, while the disrespectful hunters are. Both groups are turds but the offenses of the hunters do more damage.

As for poachers, they're going to keep poaching. Landowners and hunters alike should be hard after them.

 

[skhunter]

Be careful what you wish for. Remove government regulation from the agriculture industry and it'll all be dead/non-Canadian within a year. Government protection and subsidies for agriculture make Bombardier look like child's play.

At the end of the day people just need to play nice and for the most part I think they do. Most farmers are hardworking people just trying to run a successful business. Most hunters are respectful and just looking to put meat in the freezer. There are a-holes in both groups but they are the minority. I've lived in SK for the better part of the last decade and haven't had much trouble finding willing landowners. I'm polite, I always ask permission, and I make sure to leave minimal impact on their operations. Some I have actually struck up legitimate friendships with. Amazing what happens when you just go and talk to people, though this year is arguably a little more uneasy.

While the foreign owned/non-local owned land is a PITA, overall I think the change is reasonable. The farmers who want to keep game for themselves aren't going to affect anyone's livelihood, while the disrespectful hunters are. Both groups are turds but the offenses of the hunters do more damage.

As for poachers, they're going to keep poaching. Landowners and hunters alike should be hard after them.

Would you please give examples of those massive farm subsidies.

 

[coyoteking]

Be careful what you wish for. Remove government regulation from the agriculture industry and it'll all be dead/non-Canadian within a year. Government protection and subsidies for agriculture make Bombardier look like child's play.

Canadian farm subsidies are about 50% of our main competitors in Europe and the USA. Dairy, poultry and egg producers receive the vast majority of those subsidies. Nobody is hunting on those farms, especially in Saskatchewan, so it makes your argument mostly moot.

If Canadian grain farmers and beef producers received subsidies comparable to the subsidies that Trump gave to our US counterparts, then you’d have yourself a good debate.

We have deer, antelope, moose, gophers and various species of birds that damage our crops and cost us thousands in lost profits every year. The damage is spread out over thousands of acres so there is not enough depredation concentrated in one location to justify a claim, but it is there nonetheless. I have no problem with the small amount of losses I incur from game animals every year, but the argument about farmers not qualifying for compensation when serious wildlife damage has been done to their crops just because they don’t allow hunting on their land is asinine. If one wants to go down that road then pay to play on private land will have to enter the discussion.

 

[canadian hunter312]

Interesting, Canada's farm debt is over $114 billion, SK gets almost $400 million per year in subsidies, and SK are debt leaders at over 9% higher than the national average. Why is SK carryng so much debt compared to other farmers across the country?


No sign? Ask permission.
Cannot find owner of land you want to hunt? Move on.

 

[TT1900]

Canadian farm subsidies are about 50% of our main competitors in Europe and the USA. Dairy, poultry and egg producers receive the vast majority of those subsidies. Nobody is hunting on those farms, especially in Saskatchewan, so it makes your argument mostly moot.

It wasn't an argument, it's a fact that demonstrates the absurdity of "Remove government regulation and the public and I won't need compensation". Doesn't matter if other countries give more. Fact is the Canadian taxpayer and government regulation support agriculture, so statements like the above do nothing but raise people's hackles and give the impression of 'entitled farmers'.

I don't think any of the above matters in terms of asking permission. It's the courteous thing to do regardless of the law. Some people lack common courtesy, so as I said previously, I support the legislation.

 

[coyoteking]

Interesting, Canada's farm debt is over $114 billion, SK gets almost $400 million per year in subsidies, and SK are debt leaders at over 9% higher than the national average. Why is SK carryng so much debt compared to other farmers across the country?

I think it boils down to the sector type. Sask is crop country. Grains, pulses and oilseeds farming receives the smallest portion of government subsidies and have the thinnest margins with an average ROR of 4%.

Land prices took a huge jump in a small amount of time as well. Since 2008 we’ve seen the price per acre quadruple right across the province. With low interest rates a lot of young farmers are buying more land than their fathers did in the 80’s and 90’s. There has also been a lot of government owned land sold off to farmers in the last few years.

 

[scruffee]

So if you are OK with public funds for public access then you must be OK with private funds for private access (which is the way it should be) but there again the government /public makes that impossible.

What if I allow hunting on my land but antlerless only, should I get damage compensation?

Private funds for private access is a different debate all on its own and I for one am in favour of landowner charging trespass fees.

If you make efforts to allow hunting on your land but set restrictions such as antlerless only I am 100% ok with it. It would be the same as you saying you only want archery, no vehicles off trails, etc. At the end of the day, does and bucks eat your crops, I don't care about which gets killed and it you allow people on to reduce the herd but still need to claim crop damage, go ahead.