The bill replaces the statutory definition of “forest land” in New Brunswick’s Trespass Act and repeals paragraph 6(1)(g) of the Act. The new definition treats land outside municipal boundaries that is not under agricultural cultivation as forest land whenever trees (including seedlings and saplings), shrubs, plants or grass are growing; it also explicitly includes roads on that land other than public highways, while excluding lands already carved out elsewhere in the Act.
For land managers, hunters, recreational users and municipal authorities the change alters the map of where trespass rules apply. The textual shift — particularly the explicit coverage of young plantations and non‑highway roads — changes both who can lawfully enter a parcel and which features count as part of the regulated land, and the repeal of paragraph 6(1)(g) removes an existing statutory exception that practitioners will need to identify in the prior statute to understand what activity or class of persons loses that protection.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces the definition of “forest land” so it covers land outside city or town boundaries that isn’t cultivated for agriculture and where trees (including seedlings/saplings), shrubs, plants or grass grow; it also includes roads on that land except for public highways. Separately, it repeals paragraph 6(1)(g) of the Trespass Act, removing a specific provision from subsection 6(1).
Who It Affects
Rural landowners and private woodlot owners, commercial forestry operators, recreational users (hunters, hikers, ATVers), and law enforcement or municipal officials who apply trespass rules in non‑urban areas. Legal counsel and compliance teams for forestry and outdoor recreation businesses will need to reassess access policies.
Why It Matters
By broadening the textual scope of forest land — and by explicitly bringing roads on those lands into the definition — the bill shifts where trespass protections and penalties apply and who must secure permission to be on the land. The repeal of 6(1)(g) may remove a statutory exception; affected parties must compare the new text to the prior statute to determine which activities or actors are newly exposed.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The central change in this bill is a re‑write of the statutory definition of “forest land.” The new wording anchors the category to geography (outside the boundaries of a city or town), to use (not cultivated for agricultural purposes), and to vegetation (trees at any stage of growth, shrubs, plants or grass). That means a small replanted cutblock, a naturally regenerated woodlot, or an area with only seedlings will be captured where it sits beyond municipal limits and is not part of a cultivated field.
Another important textual addition is the explicit inclusion of “roads on the land, other than public highways.” For enforcement and land managers this is consequential: the statute will treat internal forest roads, skid trails and similar non‑highway corridors as part of the forest land for trespass purposes, so presence on those roads will be governed by the Act unless another statutory exclusion applies.The bill also preserves existing carve‑outs by saying the new definition does not include lands already excluded by subsection 5(1) or section 6 of the Act. Practically, that directs readers to examine those cross‑references to know what remains outside the definition.
Finally, the bill repeals paragraph 6(1)(g). The text of that paragraph is not restated here, so anyone advising clients must read the prior statute to see which permission, defence or exception has been removed and adjust policies and signage accordingly.Taken together, the amendments tighten and clarify what counts as forest land while shifting some features (notably young regeneration and internal roads) clearly inside the statutory ambit.
That will change day‑to‑day decisions about posting no‑trespass notices, granting permission for recreational or commercial access, and assessing whether a given entry is lawful under the Trespass Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The new definition applies only to land lying outside the boundaries of a city or town — municipal lands remain governed by other rules.
Land that is ‘cultivated for agricultural purposes’ is explicitly excluded from the forest land definition, so farm fields and actively cultivated acreage are not swept in.
‘Trees of any stage of development, including seedlings or saplings’ are now listed; recently planted or regenerating forest stands count as forest land immediately.
Roads located on the forest land (but not public highways) are treated as part of the forest land for trespass purposes, affecting use of internal forest roads.
Paragraph 6(1)(g) of the Trespass Act is repealed — practitioners must check the former text to identify which statutory exception has been removed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Replaces the definition of 'forest land'
This provision entirely substitutes the existing statutory definition of “forest land.” It sets three gateposts: (1) geographic scope (outside city/town boundaries); (2) exclusion of land cultivated for agriculture; and (3) a vegetation threshold that reaches from mature trees down to seedlings and saplings, and includes shrubs, plants and grass. The clause also brings ‘roads on the land’ into the definition but carves out public highways. In practice, this shifts many rural woodlots, plantations and regenerating areas squarely into the category that the Trespass Act controls and makes internal forest roads subject to the same trespass rules.
Repeals paragraph 6(1)(g)
This short clause removes one specific paragraph from subsection 6(1). Because the bill text does not restate what 6(1)(g) contained, advisers must compare the pre‑amendment statute to determine which permission, exception or procedural rule is being taken out. That repeal could narrow a defence or eliminate a permitted activity; the practical effect depends entirely on the prior wording of 6(1)(g).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Private woodlot and plantation owners — Gain clearer statutory backing to control access across regenerating stands and internal roads, making enforcement of no‑trespass rules more straightforward.
- Commercial forestry operators — Benefit from immediate statutory protection for replanted areas and internal access ways, which supports operational security and reduces ambiguity about where permission is required.
- Landowners who wish to restrict recreational access — The broader textual definition and inclusion of non‑highway roads provide a firmer basis to ask users to stay off private rural lands.
Who Bears the Cost
- Recreational users (hunters, hikers, ATV users) — May face reduced informal access to rural woodlots and forest roads that were previously treated with more ambiguity; they will need to obtain permission more often.
- Municipalities and enforcement agencies — Could see increased complaints and enforcement obligations as the definition changes which parcels and roadways fall under trespass rules, potentially increasing workload without additional resources.
- Landowners and businesses required to update signage and access policies — Owners who want to preserve access or clarify boundaries will need to invest in signage, outreach, or formal permission schemes; private parties must also review their risk exposure after the repeal of 6(1)(g).
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims — giving rural landowners and forestry operators clear legal control over regenerating stands and internal roads, versus preserving long‑standing informal access and customary uses of rural lands — but does so by expanding legal coverage rather than by creating narrowly tailored exceptions, which risks curtailing benign uses and shifting enforcement burdens onto authorities and landowners.
The amendment tightens the statutory language in useful ways but leaves a set of practical ambiguities. First, the phrase “not cultivated for agricultural purposes” requires operational interpretation at the property level: mixed‑use parcels with a farm field beside a woodlot may require careful mapping and possibly survey work to determine whether specific strips or pockets are excluded.
Second, including seedlings and saplings brings newly established plantations under protection immediately, which helps land managers but may criminalize casual entry onto areas that look open or undeveloped to users. Third, treating roads on the land (other than public highways) as part of forest land creates a new class of surfaces where trespass rules apply; that raises questions about who is responsible for policing those roads, how public vs private designations are determined, and whether customary use of forest roads (by neighbours, utility companies, or recreational clubs) will be interrupted.
The repeal of paragraph 6(1)(g) is the most legally delicate part of the bill because its impact depends wholly on what that paragraph previously permitted or protected. Repealing a single paragraph can unintentionally strip a long‑standing exception (for example, a statutory permission for a class of workers, researchers, or indigenous harvesters) unless transitional or clarifying language accompanies the change.
Advisers should flag the need for government guidance and for stakeholders to perform an immediate statutory comparison to identify newly exposed activities. Finally, the amendment may intersect with constitutionally protected practices and with existing lease or licence regimes; courts and administrators will need to reconcile the new definition with those parallel rights and agreements.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.