Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: IronNoggin on November 20, 2020, 04:49:37 PM

Title: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on November 20, 2020, 04:49:37 PM
A long-standing dispute between Douglas Lake Cattle Company, BC's largest private landowner, and Nicola Valley Fish & Game Club, a small recreation club from Merritt, will be heard at the BC Court of Appeal on Monday and Tuesday.         
       
The Outdoor Recreation Council of BC will be intervening.         
       
The ruling can help confirm the fundamental right of outdoor recreationists and nature lovers to gain access to public lakes that are enclosed by private property in BC's backcountry.         

Keep an eye out for a news release and the Zoom details for those who would like to attend the hearing at www.orcbc.ca on Monday morning at 7 am.       
           
For those interested in receiving updates on the court appeal directly to their inbox, you can sign up for our newsletter here: https://bit.ly/3jMktpQ               
               
The next newsletter goes out Monday morning and will include a link to a media release and the zoom details to tune into the appeal on Nov 23 & 24.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on November 24, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
U.S. billionaire again battles to stop ‘trespassers’ on his giant B.C. ranch

“This case raises important questions about the extent of the public’s right to cross private property to access public resources such as lakes, hiking trails and wilderness,” said Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia lawyer Morgan Blakley. “The decision could have implications for public access across the province, and brings to bear hundreds of years of case law.”

The Douglas Ranch case will have implications for similar right-to-roam disputes on Vancouver Island, adds Kim Reeves, chair of the Outdoor Recreational Council of B.C., who says many landowners in the province are surreptitiously destroying public roads and trails while illicitly erecting fences, barriers and no-trespassing signs.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-u-s-billionaire-again-battles-to-stop-trespassers-on-his-giant-b-c-ranch
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: typhoon on November 24, 2020, 02:25:25 PM
Nice headline. Is DLR a Canadian company employing Canadians, paying taxes in BC?
This isn’t a landmark case. These lakes are on private land, not crown land.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on November 25, 2020, 10:00:58 AM
B.C. government accused of aiding U.S. billionaire in Douglas ranch conflict

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Joel Groves ruled in 2018 the B.C. government had long failed to step in to resolve Douglas ranch’s blatantly unlawful attempt to set up log barriers, locked gates and no trespassing signs to stop anglers using historic public roads to get to two Crown-owned fishing lakes encircled by the ranch.

“Over 20 years, a privately held corporation, owning a large swath of land, prohibited the public from driving on the public road. And the province did nothing,” the judge said.

“It makes no sense to me that the Crown would retain ownership of the lakes, only for there to be no access,” Groves said. Criticizing the RCMP for also colluding with the Douglas ranch, he urged B.C.’s legislators to re-examine trespassing laws to “guarantee access to this precious public resource.”

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-b-c-government-accused-of-aiding-u-s-billionaire-in-douglas-ranch-conflict
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: dennisK on December 09, 2020, 10:19:57 AM
B.C. government accused of aiding U.S. billionaire in Douglas ranch conflict

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Joel Groves ruled in 2018 the B.C. government had long failed to step in to resolve Douglas ranch’s blatantly unlawful attempt to set up log barriers, locked gates and no trespassing signs to stop anglers using historic public roads to get to two Crown-owned fishing lakes encircled by the ranch.

“Over 20 years, a privately held corporation, owning a large swath of land, prohibited the public from driving on the public road. And the province did nothing,” the judge said.

“It makes no sense to me that the Crown would retain ownership of the lakes, only for there to be no access,” Groves said. Criticizing the RCMP for also colluding with the Douglas ranch, he urged B.C.’s legislators to re-examine trespassing laws to “guarantee access to this precious public resource.”

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-b-c-government-accused-of-aiding-u-s-billionaire-in-douglas-ranch-conflict

So in other words - when it comes down to the real world - if you have money and power you've got the cops and the gov't in your pocket.


Oh wow; Douglas Lake Cattle Company are truly vile lol

"The Douglas Lake Cattle Company has faced many controversies. It has been claimed that early on, the ranch's land holdings were expanded by pressing large amounts of cattle into the pastures of smaller neighbours. While the cattle would later be removed the damage was done. With their feed for the year consumed by Douglas Lake's herd, the homesteaders would be forced to sell. Douglas Lake Cattle Company has also aggressively restricted access to both private and public lands. By buying up thin strips of land along major arteries they are able to control wide tracts of public range."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Lake_Cattle_Company

Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: clarki on December 10, 2020, 09:29:50 AM
Oh wow; Douglas Lake Cattle Company are truly vile lol

"The Douglas Lake Cattle Company has faced many controversies. It has been claimed that early on, the ranch's land holdings were expanded by pressing large amounts of cattle into the pastures of smaller neighbours. While the cattle would later be removed the damage was done. With their feed for the year consumed by Douglas Lake's herd, the homesteaders would be forced to sell. Douglas Lake Cattle Company has also aggressively restricted access to both private and public lands. By buying up thin strips of land along major arteries they are able to control wide tracts of public range."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Lake_Cattle_Company

Be careful quoting Wikipedia, esp. when the paragraph you quoted is flagged as "citation needed"

As written, it's just a person's opinion.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: absolon on December 10, 2020, 01:11:58 PM
The judgment for the original case is here:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2167/2018bcsc2167.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAbZG91Z2xhcyBsYWtlIGNhdHRsZSBjb21wYW55AAAAAAE&resultIndex=3 (https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2167/2018bcsc2167.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAbZG91Z2xhcyBsYWtlIGNhdHRsZSBjb21wYW55AAAAAAE&resultIndex=3)

The judge's comments on the evidence given by the various parties are well worth the read and do shed some light on the practices of the ranch and particularly that of Joe Gardiner, the GM of the ranch. The discussion section is also worth reading to get some idea of the validity of the claims by the DLR.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: Old Blue on December 10, 2020, 09:49:46 PM
Let it die.  The only reason why those lakes have fish in them is from the time, money and effort of DLR.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: wildmanyeah on December 11, 2020, 08:37:09 AM
Let it die.  The only reason why those lakes have fish in them is from the time, money and effort of DLR.

DLR did not do any of it there paying clients did. I would agree more with your statement but since the money from our licenses has been going to Go Fish BC they have really got their act together when it comes to stocking.

Maybe Rivers Inlet fish should only be available to the lodges since they spent money on the hatchery their.

not a big fan of a pay for access model but it seems so would rather have it that way and create exclusive fisheries for high paying clients.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: wildmanyeah on December 11, 2020, 08:57:32 AM
The judgment for the original case is here:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2167/2018bcsc2167.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAbZG91Z2xhcyBsYWtlIGNhdHRsZSBjb21wYW55AAAAAAE&resultIndex=3 (https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2167/2018bcsc2167.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAbZG91Z2xhcyBsYWtlIGNhdHRsZSBjb21wYW55AAAAAAE&resultIndex=3)

The judge's comments on the evidence given by the various parties are well worth the read and do shed some light on the practices of the ranch and particularly that of Joe Gardiner, the GM of the ranch.

He's lucky the judge did not throw him in jail. Reading those comments wow. He was able to get peoples addresses only having their license plates and was able to get that information over the holidays.


Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: absolon on December 11, 2020, 10:26:37 AM
Let it die.  The only reason why those lakes have fish in them is from the time, money and effort of DLR.
You really should read the judgment, including the part about how the DLR handled the fish culture licenses they were granted and also how they dealt with someone they viewed as a competitor, the Paradise Lake Resort.

It might be OK with you that the ranch takes over public land and abuses the law in pursuit of their business objectives but in my view, backing off and allowing them to continue with their actions sets a precedent I'm not willing to agree with.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on December 19, 2020, 09:32:15 AM
Let it die.  The only reason why those lakes have fish in them is from the time, money and effort of DLR.

Minnie Lake was regularly stocked in the 60s and into the 70s and produced good catches of sizable fish. There even a fish camp run by Peter McVey there for a time. The Lake did winter kill every few years but always came back. McVey also re-channeled some of the creeks flowing into Stoney to improve the inflow of water fish survived and grew very large. McVey closed his camp and later became involved in Corbett Lake Lodge. Beaver dams plugged the creeks into Stoney and fish could not survive the winter. Minnie experienced summer kills after irrigation draw downs by DLCC. Stocking was suspended and public access was cut off partly due to public abuse of the ranch land around the lake. This is all contained in Steve Raymond's book Kamloops Trout.

In the 80s McVey received permission to let him try to reestablish a private pay for access trout fishery in both Stoney and Minnie. He provided the trout to stock the lake. After there was proof of concept, DLCC took over the operation and built Stoney Lake Lodge. They also took over Salmon Lake fish camp and redeveloped it. Prior to that, the lake also was improved considerably by changing the channel of the Salmon River so it entered the lake at the western end.

The Province has improved conditions for the survival of trout  on many lakes including some that are surrounded by private land (ie the Corbett aeration project). The changes to Minnie and Stoney were not all that intensive and produced viable fisheries. The damning and dyking projects that increased the size and depth of both lakes came after trout fisheries were reestablished.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on December 19, 2020, 09:41:59 AM
The judgment for the original case is here:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2167/2018bcsc2167.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAbZG91Z2xhcyBsYWtlIGNhdHRsZSBjb21wYW55AAAAAAE&resultIndex=3 (https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2018/2018bcsc2167/2018bcsc2167.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAbZG91Z2xhcyBsYWtlIGNhdHRsZSBjb21wYW55AAAAAAE&resultIndex=3)

The judge's comments on the evidence given by the various parties are well worth the read and do shed some light on the practices of the ranch and particularly that of Joe Gardiner, the GM of the ranch. The discussion section is also worth reading to get some idea of the validity of the claims by the DLR.

Does it occur to you that this may be part of the appeal - that Judge Grove did not give sufficient weight to Gardnier's evidence as well as the evidence of other witnesses?
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: absolon on December 19, 2020, 07:54:16 PM
From what I have read, the grounds for appeal are the lake boundaries. The DLR wants a map from the19 century to define the boundaries. IIRC the judge chose to use a photo from the late 40's.

They may have a grab bag full of what they would like to serve as grounds to reverse the decision. The court will decide if they are correct with any of them. From the judge's comments, Gardiner's actions and bearing in mind I'm not a lawyer, I doubt very much that it will be determined that Gardiner's comments deserve more weight.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on December 20, 2020, 08:36:42 AM
The thing about appeals - the appeals court does not have to hear them. They will only hear them if there are reasonable grounds that the judge (Judge Grove in this case) made an error (or errors) in law. An appeal is not a re-trial. It is done on the basis of the evidence put forward at the original trial.

I haven't seen the appeal application but from what I read is DLCC is not appealing the decision around the Stoney Lake Road which was the major decision. I also don't believe it concerns who owns the fish. The main issue is about rights of way.  I have read the transcript a time or two but it's been at least a year since I did. From what I remember Grove accepted the Club's position that the ROWs were not extinguished because the land was deeded by a Grant he assumed it was intention of the Crown the ROWs would be maintained... which is unique.

Grove was quite indignant that the Province conspired against it's own law to close a public road and continued to keep it closed despite public complaints. After that he became motivated to give the club pretty much everything it was after. 
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: wildmanyeah on January 22, 2021, 11:09:44 AM
Any update on this?
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: Wiseguy on February 18, 2021, 04:45:23 PM
Any updates this story? Is it still before the courts?
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on February 18, 2021, 09:45:58 PM
Arguments by the defense and plaintiff have been presented and it may take some months before a ruling is released.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on March 05, 2021, 12:34:28 PM
Lake access ruling reversed

B.C. Court of Appeal overturns groundbreaking 2018 decision granting public access to private lakes

B.C.’s highest court has overturned a groundbreaking 2018 decision granting public access to private lakes, likening the words of the trial judge to those of an advocate.


https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/327041/B-C-Court-of-Appeal-overturns-groundbreaking-2018-decision-granting-public-access-to-private-lakes#327041
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on March 06, 2021, 09:40:28 AM
The NF&G club basically won everything they asked for other than the right to cross private land owned by DLCC to fish the lakes;

the original surface area of the lakes are public. Those parts that were added when the lake level was raised are private

the existing road is public.

Minnie Lake can be accessed legally via either the creek that drains it

the fish in the lake no matter how they got there or who stocked them are public and managed under Provincial regulation.

However just because a former public road that once skirted Stoney lake is now underwater is not justification for trespass.

Likewise none of the claims that right of way trails or roads into Minnie are public were recognized. When land transfers from Crown title to private the right to travel on trails etc is extinguished. That's always been in the Land and Land title acts.

There are a lot of lakes in the area that have public access points. Unfortunately the DLCC lakes became private long before the public desire to access such lakes developed and was recognized.


the full ruling by the Court of Appeal which was endorsed by all 3 sitting judges is here:

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/21/00/2021BCCA0099.htm#_Toc65246391
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on March 06, 2021, 10:54:45 AM
The lawyer for the club is quite confident that they will win a appeal in the Canadian court of appeal. 

The process of filing said appeal is already in motion.

This saga is far from over...
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on March 06, 2021, 12:16:38 PM
well that's good though it is a terrible cost for the club to bear. How much money are you ponying up IN?
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on March 06, 2021, 12:24:53 PM
Between what I have already piped along, and what a handful of us on the Island will be combining & sending for their appeal, I'd hazard a guess it is one hell of a lot more than you Ralphie Ol' Chap.

Nog
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on March 06, 2021, 01:05:10 PM
I have not and have no intention to make any contribution. I expect the SCOC will decline to hear the appeal. There are likely more than a few reasons for them to g
go that way.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on March 06, 2021, 01:22:17 PM
I have not and have no intention to make any contribution. I expect the SCOC will decline to hear the appeal. There are likely more than a few reasons for them to fo that way.

I find your lack of care and concern entirely unsurprising, and of course anything in the way of help Ralphie Ol' Chap. Simply goes with one of your mindset.

As for the SCOC, I'd hazard a guess you are in error in your guesses once again. There are more than sufficient grounds for the appeal, as has been discussed & recently pointed out by several much more educated and informed minds than yours.

Cheers,
Nog
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on March 06, 2021, 02:32:06 PM
LOL! The resolution of every legal argument involved one party being in the wrong. 

There are better ways to resolve issues like this. The NFGC vs DLCC will only resolve the issue for 2 lakes. I have yet to read or hear a qualified legal person say this case will likely change anything outside of access to Minnie and Stoney or serve as any sort of useful legal precedent ergo it is a waste of money and time.

A far better approach is to legislate a change. A positive first step would be to get the 3 major parties to support such a change as part of their platforms for the next Provincial election.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on March 06, 2021, 05:33:51 PM
... I have yet to read or hear a qualified legal person say this case will likely change anything outside of access to Minnie and Stoney or serve as any sort of useful legal precedent ergo it is a waste of money and time.

Just because "you haven't heard it" doesn't mean that doesn't exist. Ralphie Ol' Chap. In fact, a handful of Legal Beagles I work with were (and are) ready to pounce on similar issues occurring here on the Island, based upon what happens with this particular case. However it is entirely unlikely they'd be at all willing to share any of their findings with you, so I can understand you being out of the loop.

Quote
A far better approach is to legislate a change. A positive first step would be to get the 3 major parties to support such a change as part of their platforms for the next Provincial election.

And just when I believe you to be a Total KnotHead, you come up with something that I can actually get right behind. Awesome.

Cheers indeed Ralph. Have a great evening.
Nog
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on March 07, 2021, 12:56:59 PM
Just wanted to mention that civil  appellants (this is a civil case) have to request an approval of "Leave to Appeal" directly to the SCOC. The court determines which cases it will hear and which it will not. It does not provide reasons why a leave to appeal is declined.

Generally the number cases granted leave are about 10% of the total applications submitted in any given  year.



(https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/stat/images/2.1_e.jpg)
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on March 11, 2021, 11:56:32 AM

Pressure on B.C. government to fix trespassing laws that favour U.S. billionaire and other landowners

"Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation,' says judge, inspiring outdoors people to call for action.

Environmentalists, lawyers and outdoors groups say B.C. judges have recently made it clear that it’s Victoria’s job to fix illogical laws that allow private property owners to keep anglers and hikers away from publicly owned lakes and rivers because they own the land surrounding the waterways.

“It makes no sense to me that the Crown would retain ownership of the lakes, only for there to be no access because someone owns all the land surrounding the lake,” wrote the judge. “I have been a presider in the superior courts of British Columbia for close to 18 years and I have never felt the need until this case to comment to government … on a circumstance that has come before me with the hope of urging politicians to act.”

Groves called on the B.C. government to revamp the Trespass Act. He told politicians in Victoria there is no point to the province owning lakes, lake beds and fish if public access can’t be regulated. “Consider doing what other jurisdictions have done and guarantee access to this precious resource.”


https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-pressure-on-b-c-govt-to-fix-trespassing-laws-that-favour-u-s-billionaire-and-other-landowners
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: CohoJake on March 11, 2021, 02:13:17 PM
Pressure on B.C. government to fix trespassing laws that favour U.S. billionaire and other landowners

"Unlike other jurisdictions, British Columbia does not have public access legislation,' says judge, inspiring outdoors people to call for action.

Environmentalists, lawyers and outdoors groups say B.C. judges have recently made it clear that it’s Victoria’s job to fix illogical laws that allow private property owners to keep anglers and hikers away from publicly owned lakes and rivers because they own the land surrounding the waterways.

“It makes no sense to me that the Crown would retain ownership of the lakes, only for there to be no access because someone owns all the land surrounding the lake,” wrote the judge. “I have been a presider in the superior courts of British Columbia for close to 18 years and I have never felt the need until this case to comment to government … on a circumstance that has come before me with the hope of urging politicians to act.”

Groves called on the B.C. government to revamp the Trespass Act. He told politicians in Victoria there is no point to the province owning lakes, lake beds and fish if public access can’t be regulated. “Consider doing what other jurisdictions have done and guarantee access to this precious resource.”


https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-pressure-on-b-c-govt-to-fix-trespassing-laws-that-favour-u-s-billionaire-and-other-landowners

I would LOVE to have a similar law in the US, but alas, we have the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which includes "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I support this right overall, but I wish that the state of Washington would have reserved a public right of access before it sold off property.  Washington is one of the few states where private individuals can own tidelands, which means there are private shellfish beaches - something that still irks me. My fantasy in Washington is that the state would just offer a discount on property taxes (or a complete abatement of taxes for a number of years) in exchange for public bank access. Public access is one of the biggest reasons I miss fishing in BC.

 Some quick research tells me that there was some effort to codify property rights in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I don't see that there is any similar codified right in Canada.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on March 15, 2021, 03:19:07 PM
Fish and game club plans to take Douglas Lake dispute to Supreme Court of Canada

"The Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club may have lost a recent court battle for public access to Stoney and Minnie Lakes, but that doesn't mean they've given up. The club is hoping to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada to win a "precedent-setting" case for public access to waterways."

https://infotel.ca/newsitem/fish-and-game-club-plans-to-take-douglas-lake-dispute-to-supreme-court-of-canada/it81499
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on March 16, 2021, 12:29:49 PM
SCC to decide lake access?

"Having now had their hopes dashed by BC’s highest court, the NVFGC decided at a meeting of the executive held on March 14 to take their plea to the highest court in the country.

“We’ve decided to pursue the case to the Supreme Court of Appeal of Canada,” said McGowan.

“The bottom line, the huge issue, is that the judge ruled that if the landowner acquires a water license and raises the water over his private property, that property and the water above it is private, so you can’t get to the public part of a public lake, which is bizarre. And that affects thousands and thousands of lakes in British Columbia and Canada, which is really serious,” McGowan continued.

“It’s not a good thing for the people of British Columbia and future generations, it’s basically just a terrible ruling, it’s for the very rich and not taking into concern provincial laws and legislation and/or the people of British Columbia and future generations. It’s basically taking public property and giving it for free to rich people.”


https://www.castanet.net/news/Kamloops/328073/Merritt-area-fishing-club-says-it-plans-to-appeal-lake-access-decision-to-Canada-s-highest-court#328073
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: RalphH on March 17, 2021, 09:03:48 AM
McGowan statement contains a number of errors. One simply has to read the actual ruling and not the press clippings to see this. All 3 judges on the appeals bench made the ruling not just one. There was not a dissenting opinion. In his 2018 ruling Judge Grove acknowledged parts of both lakes may be in fact be private since both lakes were raised and DLCC land was flooded (see paras 253 and 277).

The part that is bizzare about both Mr McGowan's and his Lawyer Mr Harvey's statements is that the issue for this case is moot in any event since the court ruled that other than via Wasely Creek to Minnie Lake, there is no public access to either lake! This is the kind of unexpected event that occurs when parties who go to court fail to think it through completely. It also illustrates why the best way to change situations like this is to amend the Land and Land Titles Acts, not the courts where the status quo may be virtually cast in cement for eternity.
Title: Re: Douglas Lake Cattle Company
Post by: IronNoggin on April 21, 2021, 01:39:51 PM
Decades-long battle over 2 B.C. lakes shines light on public access to Crown lands

In response to a request from CBC, a spokesperson for the B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development said it is studying the Minnie and Stoney lakes court decision and considering "all options," including making changes so "British Columbians can further enjoy recreation on public lands."

What he wants to see are easements, or pathways, on contested properties to ensure that the public can access lakes and other wilderness areas that are currently out of reach.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-crown-lands-access-court-battle-1.5987099