Google Translate Disclaimer

A number of pages on the Government of Saskatchewan`s web site have been professionally translated in French. These translations are identified by a yellow text box that resembles the link below and can be found in the right hand rail of the page. The home page for French-language content on this site can be found here:

Renseignements en Français

Where an official translation is not available, Google™ Translate can be used. Google™ Translate is a free online language translation service that can translate text and web pages into different languages. Translations are made available to increase access to Government of Saskatchewan content for populations whose first language is not English.

The results of software-based translation do not approach the fluency of a native speaker or possess the skill of a professional translator. The translation should not be considered exact, and may include incorrect or offensive language Government of Saskatchewan does not warrant the accuracy, reliability or timeliness of any information translated by this system. Some files or items cannot be translated, including graphs, photos, and other file formats such as portable document formats (PDFs).

Any person or entities that rely on information obtained from the system does so at his or her own risk. Government of Saskatchewan is not responsible for any damage or issues that may possibly result from using translated website content. If you have any questions about Google™ Translate, please visit: Google™ Translate FAQs.

Review of Trespass Related Legislation

The Government of Saskatchewan has reviewed trespass related legislation in Saskatchewan to determine if changes are warranted to consolidate the approach taken in existing legislation and to better address the appropriate balance between rural land owners and members of the public. As part of this review, we asked Saskatchewan citizens for their views. The questionnaire is now closed.

Hunting and Fishing Rights

It should be noted that First Nations hunting and fishing rights are Constitutional rights that are set out in the Treaties and are protected by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement of 1930. Whether First Nations people have a right of access to any particular lands will continue to be governed by the Treaties, the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement, and the court decisions that have interpreted those rights.

Government's view is that the current Trespass to Property Act does not affect Treaty hunting and fishing rights as it neither creates a right of access to privately owned land nor takes those rights away. This will in no way change with any of the possible amendments discussed in this paper.

The Government of Saskatchewan is also of the view that Métis Aboriginal hunting and fishing rights are not affected by any amendments that may be proposed to The Trespass to Property Act. Whether Métis people have access to any particular lands for the purpose of hunting and fishing will continue to be governed by the court decisions that have interpreted those rights.

If you have any questions regarding this review, please email: LSBQuestionnaire@gov.sk.ca

Executive Summary:

Total Responses Received 1,601  
In favour of permission prior to entry in all cases 1,039 65%
Opposed to permission prior to entry in all cases 515 32%
Inconclusive responses 47 3%

Four questions were set out for consideration in the questionnaire:

Question #1 – Should all access by members of the public to rural property require the express advance permission of the rural land owner regardless of the activity?

Question #2 – Should there be a distinction between cultivated land, fenced property and open pasture land or should all land being used for agricultural purposes be treated the same?

Question #3 – How should permission be sought and granted?

Question #4 – Would making consent an express prerequisite in all circumstances represent an unreasonable impediment to recreational activities?

These questions were asked in response to concerns that Saskatchewan's trespass legislation can be confusing and that it needs to better address the appropriate balance between the rights of rural land owners and members of the public. Existing access and posting rules vary for different activities under The Trespass to Property Act, The Wildlife Act, 1998, The All-Terrain Vehicles Act, and The Snowmobile Act.

Question #1 – Should all access by members of the public to rural property require the express advance permission of the rural land owner regardless of the activity?

The strong majority of respondents indicated a clear preference that express advance consent be required in all cases of access to private rural property by members of the public. Most respondents said that the existing onus on rural land owners to post their land in a particular manner in order to prevent trespassing was frustrating and unfair, and that the burden should lie on the person seeking access to request permission. Hunter safety, rural crime and biosecurity were most often cited as concerns from landowners who have experienced trespassing.

Concerns were expressed by a significant minority of respondents that the existing provisions were appropriate and that changes to the rules were not needed. Some respondents argued that restrictions should apply only to vehicles, as foot traffic did not represent the same risk for abuse.

Question #2 – Should there be a distinction between cultivated land, fenced property and open pasture land or should all land being used for agricultural purposes be treated the same?

Those who supported a requirement for express advance permission generally drew no distinction between cultivated land, fenced land and open pasture land. Their view was that all property owned by an individual should be treated in the same fashion when it came to permission. A minority, particularly snowmobilers, supported a legal distinction between fenced and unfenced property that did not require them to ask for consent to snowmobile on unposted, unfenced property.

Question #3 – How should permission be sought and granted?

There was less clarity in the responses around how such permission should best be sought and granted. Some responses advocated advance written permission, while others supported the practice of providing oral consent, or consent through posting or other signage. Some respondents suggested that stronger supports or systems should be put in place for those wishing to obtain permission to access land, in the event consent requirements are enhanced.

Question #4 – Would making consent an express prerequisite in all circumstances represent an unreasonable impediment to recreational activities?

With respect to impact on recreational activities, respondents noted that responsible hunters and recreational activists were already seeking appropriate consent and that this change would only impact those who do not respect legitimate land owner concerns. A significant minority indicated that this change would have a detrimental effect on hunting, snowmobiling and other recreational activities.

The questionnaire and the collected responses can be found in the attachments at the bottom of this page. The attached documents do not include blank responses received via the online questionnaire, emails that did not provide a response, or responses that were determined to be inappropriate or inflammatory.

We need your feedback to improve saskatchewan.ca. Help us improve