Could Some Canadians Be Shut Out of Public Land?

本站添加: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]Well, our public crown lands are a precious inheritance for all Canadians.

[00:00:06]Unfortunately, the facts are that our ability to access these public lands are being compromised. There's many, many examples. The question, though, is is it time to enshrine those rights to ensure access for all Canadians to public lands?

[00:00:24]So with me here today to talk about this very important issue is uh Jesse Zean who's the executive director of the BC Wildlife Federation and Chris Heield who's a senior policy adviser for the Manitoba Wildlife Federation. So a warm welcome.

[00:00:39]>> Thanks.

[00:00:40]>> Thank you.

[00:00:41]Well, I'm delighted to welcome you, Jesse, and Chris, because uh I know that uh you're important leaders in this country about this important topic. And is public access for all Canadians to public lands being compromised? And I'll start with you, Jesse. What's the brief answer to that?

[00:00:57]>> Uh the brief answer, I guess, is yes. um you know for our organization uh were a big outfit here in BC and and public access was you know probably number three number four priority issue I would say 8 10 years ago and um and now it seems to be at the top of the pile every single day >> every single day. What about you Chris?

[00:01:19]We're we're experiencing the same things. Uh we are a little bit further behind what BC experienced but uh in Manitoba again we're we're dealing with it every day. dealing with it this morning. Another uh uh access being blocked to public lands. Right. So, it is something that's on our radar every day now.

[00:01:35]>> Okay. Well, we're going to dive into this um uh complex issue. There are a lot of layers to this to put it mildly.

[00:01:44]Um but I think once people understand this, they'll be pretty um shocked about what's going on here. So I want to start off with the basics around uh what really what do we really mean by crown lands and then a little bit later go into the history but what what do we mean by public or crown lands? Jesse do you want to take a >> yeah shot at that? And so at BC's BC's in a different spot on a number of uh kind of fronts, but one of them is, you know, in BC it's going to be somewhere around 93 95% of of land in British Columbia is currently crown land, right?

[00:02:20]So, you know, unlike other parts of the country where you've got a ton of private land and land that's been sold, um we have a pile of crown land. And so crown land is essentially land that's you know under the the management and authority of the provincial government in our case. There's some federal land as well but um you know overwhelming majority of British Columbia right now is crown land. And so typically with crown land we talk about people in our world going out camping, hunting, fishing, hiking and recreating as being, you know, an integral part of what we do um as British Columbombians and as Canadians. And uh we're certainly very concerned about the public's ability to go out and continue to do these these activities as we move forward.

[00:03:08]>> So Chris, um how do you view the importance of crown land and the public's access to it?

[00:03:15]>> It's, you know, for us that enjoy the outdoors, it's imperative to have that access, right? So um we're blessed with crown lands the same as BC. The majority of our lands here are public lands and not privately owned. So, I mean, if you're an avid hunter, outdoorsman, you rely on those public lands to have access to enjoy our heritage that we we all cherish. So, >> and Chris, would you say that the public access to crown land has generally been working pretty well? No, no system is perfect, but there's been a a positive working together as uh the public uh say like licensed hunters goes into areas.

[00:03:55]Uh has it been going well on the whole up till the last couple years it has been working. I mean there's always incidents where there's an issue but up till the last few years uh it has been working right. So everybody shared in those public resources and public access and uh now we're seeing that pendulum swinging where there is being restrictions placed on certain people.

[00:04:15]So uh it is changing but it had worked prior to that. So >> okay and Chris when we mean crown lands we don't mean first nation lands do we?

[00:04:26]>> No uh first nation lands it's a little bit different legal framework in Manitoba than BC. uh the prairie provinces, you know, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, all have the natural resource transfer agreement. So, and and they signed treaties with the First Nations to give them X amount of acreage in those treaties. Um but that also that give them that land that we don't access for hunting, angling, or outdoors. It's the crown land that we're accessing. So, it is quite a bit different than BC. All the treaties were signed here in Manitoba. So the First Nations have right to that to the land that they signed for and the government does owe them more crown land and there's a whole process involved in getting those lands transferred to the First Nations through a treat entitlement process which is a lot different than what we're seeing happening in BC because BC doesn't have that same legal framework. Yeah. But the point is that there are treaties or understandings around what are First Nations lands and and crown land is is is something very different. So in this case, I want dare to go into a little bit of history here, Jesse, with your help. Um because this history, this kind of inheritance that we talk about is really from a British tradition where the king, the queen, the crown had this public land. So help us understand that kind of history here. And I think we've got an interesting picture of uh I think it's King John here going back some 856 years as memory serves me correctly. But Jesse, help us understand the history here.

[00:05:58]>> So, you know, we we to contextualize the conversation, we currently have salmon identified as a common property resource uh in Canada that is supposed to be, you know, managed on behalf of all present and future Canadians. That's kind of the concept.

[00:06:15]And so the question is, you know, there's a proposal to remove that from the salmon allocation policy. And the question is, well, where did we come from? Well, uh, you know, going back, uh, as you say, over 800 years ago, there was this king. His name was King John. And, and King John really had very little regard for his commoners. I guess >> he was a bad king, Jesse.

[00:06:37]>> He was an extremely bad king who taxed people. Um, at that point there were a whole bunch of lands where people could go and graze their sheep, where people could go and cut firewood. um and uh also where people could access rivers um and waterways and that was how commerce was generated in large part and then finally um you know he started basically taking these forests back and saying these are mine no one else can use them if you want to use them you're going to pay me for it and same with a bunch of the rivers and then finally what he ended up doing is he put a bunch of we in these rivers and said you know on top of all that these fish are mine I will catch them I will sell them to who I want uh when I want. And so he took kind of all these resources and said these are now the kings and the king will do what he wants when he wants however he wants. And I think at some point um the king's barren had had enough and and basically told him you know it's your head or we're forcing you to sign this document. And the document was called the Magna Carta. And there's a whole bunch of things in there outside of the world of accessing natural resources as we know them. Um but you know essentially what the idea was was to to limit the powers of the king. And so the Magna Carta kind of came in and said, "Hey, we have these concepts of common property resources and people can go out and cut firewood and people can access fish." Um and that was actually further codified in the charter of the forest which happened two years later. And so, you know, the concept over time and the and the legal piece has kind of trickled down, but our, you know, our structure here in Canada and in North America is very different than a lot of other parts in the world. And so, where we've ended up is now we have these things called navigable waters. We have rivers and streams and lakes and ocean. We have the ability to access parks. We have the ability to access fish and wildlife because those are, you know, owned by the commoners. They're common property resources that is not super common all over the world. There's a whole bunch of other models which were where King John was headed. So the these resources are owned by the king or the queen or by royalty or by wealthy or by land owners in Canada. Our ability to go out and recreate is kind of foundational to this piece. And same with the folks in the United States, by the way. They've even done more work on this. But this concept of just being able to go out in nature doesn't exist all over the world. It fully does not. There's people that come here from other parts of the world that are completely amazed that you can go out, have a campfire in the middle of the day, break wood, put a can of beans on it or a hot dog and eat your lunch.

[00:09:20]They are just blown away by that because in places where they come and some of the places in Europe, somebody owns those sticks that you want to light a fire with. Somebody owns that land that you want to use. And so, you know, these this concept of common property for resources for us is, you know, it's really a hill to die on. It's why we enjoy so much access to nature. It's why nature is also so important to so many Canadians.

[00:09:42]Isn't that interesting history? So, let us remember history here as we think about access to public crown land. And it's it's it strikes me as a unique inheritance as you mentioned, Jesse. So Chris, my question to you is what strikes you about so unique about the importance of public access and secondly do we have it enshrined in our constitution or is it enshrined in other ways?

[00:10:10]um the enshrined question first. I don't think it's enshrined, but it's been common that we've all shared the resources, right? So, like I said previously, we didn't have a problem with accessing and sharing and lately there's obviously these these uh these issues coming up and now we're having these people saying this is my resources, mine first. You don't have right to that. And when you do that, we're creating division in the country and it's it's on a path that's it's it's going to have consequences for people that cherish the outdoors. It's um it's we're in trouble. Like everybody needs to have a right to access public lands.

[00:10:48]We should all be able to share, allocate, figure out how to share properly. And it's government's job to bring everybody to the table. And we haven't seen that leadership. And there's a vacuum being created where they're saying some groups are saying these resources are mine first and we're going to exclude you. And when you exclude certain people, you create that animosity and then you don't have people protecting those resources anymore. So, uh you see these resources being depleted because certain groups are now saying those are mine, but other groups are saying those are mine and the resources will lose in the end and there's nobody left speaking for the resources and that's the path we're on currently. So, >> okay. Wow. So there's a lot at stake here as we've got this incredible historic tradition of a shared commons.

[00:11:33]In fact, that's used often in policy parliament. There's a commons here and we share this to this unique tradition in Canada from coast to coast to coast.

[00:11:44]And in this tradition, you see cracks developing where um it's we're we're changing that public policy. And so just before we kind of dive into why that's changing and using examples, I wanted to ask more about your role in this um I I'm intrigued because as I've understood uh the role uh help me understand the role of wildlife federations.

[00:12:12]What do you do in terms of the special use of these commons? And do you see your role as just simply taking uh from these lands in terms of wildlife? How do you really function to help protect and and advance the cause of this incredible public comments? Jesse?

[00:12:33]>> Yeah, that's a great question. You know, coach is kind of in the sand allocation policy world, but we can do it with wildlife as well.

[00:12:40]>> Okay, just to just to clarify, I'm going to ask you a really dumb question. What do you even mean by a salmon allocation policy? Like for people who don't even fish or understand how we conserve this precious wildlife, what are you talking about?

[00:12:54]>> Yeah. And so salmon allocation policy is essentially how we share salmon. That's that's how we work on conserving salmon.

[00:13:01]Um protecting First Nations section 35 rights and then splitting salmon between the commercial salmon fishing industry and us who we would call ourselves the uh the public fishery, right? because we represent, you know, there's closer to 400,000 licensed anglers who go saltwater fishing here in British Columbia. But but in the in the grand scheme of things, if we go from, you know, the front end about users all the way to the back end and even using salmon or wildlife, um you know, hunters and anglers are the biggest conservationists in the country. And as relates to salmon, uh when we let people go out salmon fishing, put some fish in their freezer, spend some time with their family, they always give back. And so when we talk about salmon, you know, when we talk about removing people's access from salmon, well, now you've lost all these benefits. And the benefits include in British Columbia, $1.3 billion in economic expenditures, 600 plus million dollars in GDP, 9100 uh sustainable jobs. On top of that, it's the most sustainable fishery, the most selective fishery. It is also the only dedicated funding mechanism where license fees go directly back into that resource for salmon conservation salmon enhancement.

[00:14:15]>> Okay. So, so just to clarify, so you're so you're working carefully to divide up the metaphorical pie for every wildlife in a responsible way because you want to use the word conserve because you want to conserve and walk the balance in terms of what you can harvest from nature's bounty but also ensure its healthy um continuation. Right. Right.

[00:14:44]that that's what really is the heart of what you're trying to do here.

[00:14:47]>> Yeah. Yeah. We as hunters angos, we have to be sustainable. Meaning, if if we're not putting conservation first and taking care of fish and wildlife and habitat first, there's nothing left in the future. And so our entire lifestyle and whale of life and culture and heritage, it disappears. So there is a there is a direct line of sight with people who fish and hunt to people who put back. And the putting back side uh on salmon and on wildlife is dedicated license fees. So we are the only group in Canada that goes to provincial MLAs and federal politicians and says, "Hey, we want to pay more tax. Please tax us.

[00:15:27]We're here to pay more as long as it goes back into this resource so it can be conserved." No one else, no one else shows up in Victoria or Winnipeg or or in Ottawa and says, "Hey, please tax us more as long as we take care of this resource." So, we are the sole, you know, the sole dedicated funding source to conserve. But we also have our members and our clubs who do hundreds of thousands of dollars for of hours and dollars of volunteerism every single year whether they're operating community hatcheries doing habitat enhancement uh participating in uh research projects um they're they are the ones who are out there on the ground taking care of it.

[00:16:08]And we have clubs who live, you know, hundreds of kilometers from their nearest salmon fishing opportunity, but in their backyard, they spend all of their spare time working on salmon because salmon are important to them.

[00:16:22]>> Wow. Amazing.

[00:16:23]>> So ultimately, you know, if you remove people from this resource, the people who are spending millions of dollars a year to take care of it, you will lose the resource. We just we just put did a five-year review of some of our stewardship and conservation projects on wetland stream restoration, salmon um and research. And the last 5 years for us at the BC Wildlife Federation, the projects we've done are worth over $25 million in five years from from a volunteer-run organization that brings in partners from First Nations, from the provincial government, from grants, and we put that money on the ground to take care of it for future generations.

[00:17:00]>> Wow. Incredible. So Chris, um, is is do you run a kind of a similar operation in Manitoba and and all your participants are all paid, highly paid and getting overtime hours or are they volunteers as well?

[00:17:13]>> It's vol We're very much like a sister organization with with BC. It's very similar. But I mean what Jesse I'll touch a little bit more on the wildlife side than Jesse did. But you know our organization led for the last 10 years asking for you know more survey data, more analysis, more biologists, the latest technology to get the proper science to know what we have for a baseline for fish and wildlife population.

[00:17:38]>> Wait, just hold on for a sec here. So you actually look at conservation through the lens as best you can through science. You're not just kind of putting your thumb in the air and saying, "Well, where where are things drifting here?"

[00:17:50]You're actually looking at data >> uh to responsibly manage this wildlife 100%. And and you know, we're looking for it to be sustainable. So, we can't be harvesting something that doesn't exist. So, that's why we're asking for better science, more biologists, more reporting, and then you can divide up the pie and allocate it properly. Right?

[00:18:10]So, uh, I'll give you an example. On the west side of Manitoba, uh, moose populations in the in the Ducks and Porcupine Mountains were receding. We called for more surveys. We get the survey data. We find out the population has completely collapsed. Uh, so we we've called for a complete closure for everyone and our government refuses to do it.

[00:18:29]>> Oh, what? Sorry. You're calling for a closure.

[00:18:32]>> Closure. and the government because you see the science you're you're investigating that but your debate with the government is that they don't want to close the the area and you so back up about a decade and they closed it for everybody it's called a conservation closure so nobody should be harvesting they did reopen it the population slowly rebounded till they opened it up for first nation harvest only uh then subsequent surveys proved that the population had des completely collapsed again and we feel strongly it might be beyond repair like it's that far. So this past year we actually called for a complete closure enforcement that no harvest would take place and the government didn't take that take us up on that. So we are >> and why is that? Why wouldn't the government hear that? And uh I mean obviously there are debates here.

[00:19:19]>> Section 35 rights like it's it's complicated but uh conserv like the law is very clear that you can close harvest to anybody if the population is at a certain stage and we feel it's well below that stage and that we should have closed it for everybody. Um they didn't do that right. So we're worried that you know in a couple years that that population can never rebound once they actually fly another survey. So our groups called for lots of closures over the years where we feel that the population can't sustain a harvest and uh that's part of our role here too. So we're not asking to harvest more. We're asking for proper science, proper biology and then divide and and allocate the uh resources so they they can be sustainable. So that's what we ask for continuously.

[00:20:05]Okay. Well, it it's very interesting to hear this system and I I know I've you know spoke to both of you. It is really quite a remarkable system that you're leaders of trying to facilitate a whole movement and I use this word deliberately, a movement of thousands and thousands of volunteers who want to responsibly tend and conserve to wildlife. And what I find fascinating as well is that um you know from time to time you hear irresponsible hunters out there. How common is that in your experience, Jesse? Uh it's a small fraction. It's a it's a percent but but you know the the social ramifications are big and so in our world >> sorry the what the social ramifications right because if there's negative press around hunting or fishing um quite often it gets blanketed across the entire population. So, in our in our world, and Chris has similar stuff, we actually offer a reward of up to $2,000 for anyone who reports um a wildlife or poaching infraction, and we award money every year on that who help support it. Yeah. And we also do a ton of education as well because we want people to come up to understand how the hunting, fish, and fishing regulations work. We want them to have um a good experience. We don't want them to get in trouble with the law. We also administer the uh hunter education course on behalf of the province, which I'm sure Chris does as well. So, we're the ones that are kind of teaching teaching the next generation. Um doing the best that we can because there are bad actors out there. There are there are poachers. There are, you know, commercial enterprises related to po poaching. Um like really serious stuff.

[00:21:50]Uh those aren't hunters, right? We call those poachers. There's a huge difference. And I mean the analogy is as far apart as someone who has a driver's license and someone who drives drunk.

[00:21:59]Those are not the same people. And in our world, it's the distinction is very important. People who break the law and take way more than they're supposed to.

[00:22:07]They are poachers. They are not hunters or anglers.

[00:22:11]>> Okay. So to be clear, they're illegal.

[00:22:13]They're the bad guys. And you're on it.

[00:22:15]So Chris, I want to turn to you then and talk about within this system. How do you work in partner partnership pardon me with everybody whether it's the government, First Nations, everybody and anybody to get the job done of conservation.

[00:22:31]It's trying to get all the stakeholders around the table and that's what we've lost here the last close to a decade now. We're seeing groups all speaking for themselves and trying to divide the resources up. So we're struggling to get people back to the table. We need all the stakeholders at the table and realize that if we don't share these resources, share the responsibility of protecting them, they're not going to be there for any group in the future. So that's the struggle we're having right now is getting everybody to the table.

[00:22:57]And we do feel that's government's role is to have final say on allocation and who uses the resources, but they need to have the stakeholder input. So, >> okay. So, but to be clear, >> for for a long long time, the system has worked pretty well because of the ability to see the bigger picture, to see that the positive benefit and the working together cooperatively works, but you're seeing a change in those levels of partnership. So, that's really the context and what's going on. It's kind of like a a change in the equilibrium of the system.

[00:23:31]>> Yeah. to the point where well I'm going to ask the question to the point where the system is breaking down to the harm of the wildlife. Is that a fair comment, Chris? 100% fair comment. So we are uh our wildlife federation's involved in quite a few court cases in Manitoba where we're seeing this breakdown occur.

[00:23:53]So uh from nightlighting uh you know you know groups fighting.

[00:23:57]>> Sorry, you're using a term here. Uh what's night lighting? Night lighting is uh hunting by night with artificial lights and blinding the animal and shooting it at night time.

[00:24:07]>> You got to be kidding. So the animal doesn't even have a chance.

[00:24:10]>> No.

[00:24:11]>> So who's doing this?

[00:24:13]>> Yeah. In Manitoba it's illegal right now. We have a First Nation group fighting to make it legal again. Uh previous government made it illegal and this group is fighting to make it so they can do it again. uh to and it's a safety issue is not only for the animals but you know in southern Manitoba there's rural houses everywhere and it's just a massive safety issue for for the public. So these are the kind of things that are breaking down when when when groups feel they're entitled that >> unbelievable.

[00:24:41]>> Yeah.

[00:24:42]>> So the the the the rights of the individual groups over the many you Jesse what's your comment? Is this breaking down to the point where we're sacrificing the wildlife? Yeah. And I think you said, you know, who do you partner with and how do you partner? I mean, we do dozens and dozens of projects every single year with First Nations, with the provincial government.

[00:25:02]We have a number of coalitions, coalitions that Chris and I are a part of and provincial coalitions that make up groups that often have very very um very disperate opinions, but recognize that there's a commonality to work around wildlife. Uh, I think our challenge around public access here in British Columbia is more of a lack of principles on behalf of both the federal and provincial governments. And so we we have these instances where it's like, okay, we're going to review this policy or we're going to look at closing an area. Um, and from our perspective, you know, the message out to British Columbombians shouldn't be, hey, you're not welcome here. The message should be, hey, we want you to take your kids out on the weekend and go hunting and fishing and camping and enjoying Beast Parks. That's what we want you to do. We don't want your kids stuck to an iPad all day in your basement staring at YouTube. We want them out recreating.

[00:26:00]And so that's where we see the challenge is that, you know, both the the federal and provincial government need to have principles. And one of those principles needs to be protecting public access because we know it's good for our mental health. We know it's good for our physical health. We know it's good for our culture and heritage. And we know it's good for conservation. We have doctors out here that are prescribing nature to people that are having mental health issues. Like literally, you go into your doctor and your doctor says, "Here's a note. I want you to go down to the river twice a week and go for a walk. That's how I'm going to improve your mental health." So that's where we see things breaking down is the lack of principles um as it relates to the federal and and provincial government saying no this is really important for us and for future generations and therefore it is also a hill to die on for us and we're not seeing >> okay wow so to be clear it's the government ultimately that is a kind of a master facilitator of this system that's generally worked pretty well but they're changing their policy ies by privileging particular groups here and we'll get into that in a moment in terms of examples um because it is complex here. So let's uh let's get into an example here and I want to look at the Seal River watershed. This is a massive area in Manitoba and I think we have a map of this. So Chris, I want to turn to you because this um is a uh a watershed area and it's part of a United Nations 30 by30 initiative. Help us understand the basics in brief. What is going on here in the Seal River watershed? Well, this this area that you have here is about 8% of Manitoba's land mass. So very there is no roads to this area.

[00:27:47]This is all flying or boat in. It's very inaccessible. And and how big is this?

[00:27:52]Is this the size of Winnipeg or is it the size of Nova Scotia?

[00:27:55]>> The size of Nova Scotia.

[00:27:57]>> Unbelievable. Yeah, >> it's a it's a vast area. So, um the federal government through their United Nations agreements here is trying to protect 30% of the lands by 2030. So, this is part of that that uh mosaic that they're creating here. And um it's concerning uh these this area has already been crown land except for a few of the first nations in there that have titled land for the First Nation. This land was already protected.

[00:28:23]>> Okay. But but just to clarify, so what's the big deal? This sounds like a good idea to call everything a park. Um would the public still have access to it?

[00:28:32]What's the issue?

[00:28:33]>> We don't know. The certain areas of national park, they're saying they're going to exclude licensed hunters within a 10-year time frame.

[00:28:39]>> What? Pardon me? So, they're going to change the rules of the game. So, it was crown land notwithstanding the First Nations. Uh, that's a different issue, but they're swooping in. They're going to draw these big lines around this area the size of Nova Scotia and say no one's going to be on it. It's a proposal. We don't know where how it's going to wind up at the end. The original proposal was for this whole thing to become a national park. Uh now they've come up with some ecological corridor uh reserve areas and provincial parks. They're saying the provincial parks will still be able to hunt and angle. The cons really concerning part here though is they're going to change how we manage our provincial park. The proposal is now saying that the federal government through Parks Canada, the Alliance of First Nations, and the province would be managing the provincial park going forth.

[00:29:28]>> Okay. So Chris, your you and your team there at the Manitoba Wildlife Federation are watching these things very closely, but I'm detecting from you a kind of a sense that you don't quite know what the proposal is fully all about. I thought the last time I checked like in terms of good public policy principles, there should be transparency so that you can know exactly what's going on. The public can participate and have dialogue because if you don't know what you're talking about, then that's that's not good. So, is that what's going on? Is that it's kind of hazy and kind of half under under darkness here?

[00:30:06]What's going on?

[00:30:07]>> We we learned about it last summer. This has been going on for five, six years already. These propos this has been going on for years and you just found out about this summer. I mean this is a massive proposal for huge >> implications.

[00:30:21]There are so many implications that they haven't even weighed them all. David, so we had an outfitter reach out that takes Manitoba residents caribou hunting and fishing in that vast area of the n new national proposed park. He takes 49 Manitobans hunting per year. Nobody from the government ever reached out to him.

[00:30:37]They announced this and he learned about it publicly in the proposal. He had nobody ever had reached out to him. It's we're talking millions of dollars of investment that he's going to be out of business within 10 years. And nobody from the provincial government or the federal government reached out to this individual. So he's phoned us this morning on this. So >> well, I would think most Canadians would be shocked by that. So if we're going to connect the dots to other parts of the country, what do you say, Jesse? Are you seeing similar patterns here where there's kind of mysterious proposals that you half understand? What are you seeing in your uh in your part province?

[00:31:08]Yeah. And and we're we're also seeing the impacts. I mean, there's there's um there's one decision that, you know, certainly comes in. In 2022, BC kind of had another landmark. We've had a lot of landmark court decisions, but one was around cumulative effects in northeast BC. Huge track to land. Um it was called the Yahi decision. Essentially, um what it said is that cumulative effects from resource extraction, i.e. oil and gas forestry to a lesser extent have impacted First Nations treaty rights. Um when when we back up the clock um during that court case the you know while it was going on the province actually approached us to speak on their behalf and and we respectfully declined and said you know what we agree like you know government through the way it's managed these resources has done a terrible job and so we actually agree with with First Nations. So this decision comes down and says, "Hey, you've impacted these treaty rights through cumulative effects. You need to get your world in order." And and to us that makes sense. And we're going, "Okay, let's let's get some funding.

[00:32:11]Let's get some restoration activities going on. Let's get a plan together so that we can take care of this." And the provincial government's response uh at the time was, well, we're going to reduce the licensed moose hunter harvest by 50% and reduce the number of people who get to go moose hunting by 50%.

[00:32:30]So So instead, >> sorry. Reduce you're you're talking about reducing the amount of moose licenses.

[00:32:38]>> Yeah.

[00:32:39]>> Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[00:32:40]>> No. No. Because because we're we're hunting sustainably, right? So we got the data. There's like 49,000 moose. We probably have more moose in that area than Chris has, I don't know, in all of Manitoba, right? And and the government's response is we're going to get hunters off the landscape. Hunters are not the problem. We are not causing these issues. The problem is resource extraction that is not being adequately managed. And so instead of tackling the hard stuff, the government looks at us and goes, "Well, you're really easy. We can make it look like we're doing something." And so those are the kind of decisions that really um got people started. Um there's tons of my members who used to take their kids up there every single year. They'd go up for a week at a time. That was summer vacation. You know, they don't go to Mexico. They don't go to Hawaii. This is it. Like we're going to take our family up. We're going to teach our kids about tradition, culture. They're going to experience these things that they won't get experience anywhere else. And the government's response was, "We don't want to see you up here.

[00:33:43]right? We're getting we're getting rid of you. And and so basically, you know, the the outcome here is we have all these people who are investing in conservation, who are buying licenses, who are get back to conservation, and the government says, "We don't want to see you up here. We're getting rid of half of you. That's our decision." Um, no science to support it. The data that we had showed there were tons of moose.

[00:34:05]The data that we had showed that license hunting was entirely sustainable. and and the court decision said cumulative effects are the problem. It didn't mention hunting or license hunting in this entire court case that went on for years and years and years. And you know hunters are the scapegoat. So those are the kind of challenges that that we're seeing is that we're being used as a as a scapegoat for a lot of these kind of self-induced problems that the that the governments have put themselves in. And and to your point, from a principled point of view, it's important to in a transparent fashion look at the scientific evidence, the thesis if you will, and table that so everybody can have a good healthy debate on it, and then you make a decision, an informed one. But it doesn't sound like it's happening on that one. So Chris, I want to turn back to you in terms of another case study. And this has to do with the blood vein first nation in Manitoba. And uh just to set this up, I mean this is a case where obviously we want to work together positively with First Nations.

[00:35:10]That goes without saying. Uh in this case though, there were a number of roadblocks developing to in effect stop licensed hunters from coming onto crown lands. This is not First Nations lands.

[00:35:22]This is Crownland.

[00:35:24]>> So I want to share this clip as background to get your comment.

[00:35:28]>> Okay.

[00:35:29]>> This has been an ongoing fight not only for bloodbane but for all First Nations when it comes to uh the rights of lands and territories of First Nations. A Manitoba judge has dismissed a request to stop Blood Vein First Nations roadside check stop, a checkpoint that earlier this fall turned away some licensed hunters heading toward nearby Crown Land. Blood vein leaders say the ruling supports their efforts to protect the community in a declining moose population while the Manitoba Wildlife Federations says they are concerned about new conditions heading into the season. Earlier this year, Blood Vein First Nation set up a roadside check stop to reduce drugs and alcohol entering the community. During hunting season, some licensed hunters said they were turned away from the route nearby Crown Land, prompting the Manitoba Wildlife Federation to seek a court order for access. That request was dismissed Thursday. Justice Theodore Bach ruled that while hunters may be inconvenienced by the check stop, they aren't prevented from legally hunting. I am deeply relieved and grateful that the justice system has acknowledged what we have long said. The checkpoint is about protecting the safety, health, and the dignity of our people.

[00:36:47]>> You know, it's a win for hunters. They can as of Monday go through there and the chief put in writing from her council as of last night.

[00:36:54]>> Blood vein leaders say the decision supports their responsibility to protect the land, the community, and the declining moose population. With the season underway from December 1st to 14th, they plan to escort or shadow licensed hunters in and out to ensure safety and protect cultural sites.

[00:37:12]>> What they'll be guided and shadowed with uh is to show them that where are you going to hunt? We have traditional areas. We have ceremonial sites. So, they'll be welcomed, guided. They'll get to see for themselves. There's no camping sites like there are south of our truck stop. Well, I mean, we've been out of court for less than two hours and we've already heard a change in tune so that we're going to be having escorting hunters. So, obviously, this can escalate if if they're not going to live up to their ended agreement to allow hunters through. Yes, we could wind back up in court.

[00:37:44]>> As for the check stop itself, Blood Vain says it is already making a difference, pointing to recent drug seizures. When it comes to hunting, they will continue having conversations with the province and the MWF. The Federation says going forward they want the province to step in and help bring both sides together.

[00:38:03]City News reached out to the province for comment. We did not hear back in Winnipeg. Mitchell Ringo's City News.

[00:38:11]>> Well, this is certainly complicated, Chris. So, help us understand what are the real issues at stake here and can we bring all sides together so that the public can continue to have access to Crownlands but in a responsible way. Uh in this case it's there's some positive news coming. We actually are going up there. The minister's office has arranged with the chief and counsel for a meeting with MWF and provincial staff.

[00:38:35]So we go up there on June 9th, I believe. And so we have a meeting on this. Um in in that case, this was a provincial highway that was blocked.

[00:38:44]>> That's the only highway was blocked.

[00:38:46]>> It's the only road north on the east side of Lake Winnipeg. So it's a vast track of land. And these areas that they were access were 100% crown land. So the first nation is on the side of the road just not on the but they chose to blockade the provincial highway. So it didn't nobody was asking to hunt on on the actual reserve lands of the blood vein first nation. These hunters were trying to access crown lands. So they were they were turned away at that. Now after that case there wasn't it's the provincial government put conservation officers at the check stop for the entire winter season and there was no shadowing. There was none of that that took place. It actually went up the fall season went absolutely perfect. So there was no issues h happened right. So >> okay that's great. So uh but the point is that um we you know this ill powerfully illustrates we we need to work together to be able to have the positive outcome of looking after wildlife. Um and uh so I was just very curious about that case study.

[00:39:45]>> Yeah just on that one there too. This area again like one of Jesse's examples had lots of survey data. So there was a sustainable moose population there and I think this government failed the first nation in explaining how the moose population was sustainable. So I think government in this case failed the first nation explaining that there is moose here. You're just not seeing them in in the areas that you're you're asserting.

[00:40:10]So uh I think a government failed the first nation by not explaining how the population is assessed and allocated. So >> okay so again we need to reinforce the important role that government has to play based on good conservation principles and science here to guide our decision-m. Um, so Jesse, I want to um go back to you in terms of another fascinating uh case study and this has to do with the exclusion of non-indigenous Canadians from provincial parks like Joffrey Lake and Wanduka. I mean, of course, these are beautiful parklands.

[00:40:47]What is going on here?

[00:40:49]>> Yeah, that's this is uh the droppy lakes in particular has been has been a really challenging file. Um and again I think this is where the province the province has kind of failed failed to figure it out. Um Joffrey Lakes is so you know one of the things with BC is we have like 90% of our population in a very small corner of the province and so on the weekends all of these folks fan out. Um during COVID we saw this in a in a huge way where parks overuse was rampant because we couldn't get enough people out of the lower mainland to be able to access it. And again getting back to this concept, we want people to be able to access nature. Um Joffrey Lakes is a very beautiful park, so it sees a lot of visitors. Uh First Nations flagged this as a major problem. The province's response in the end was to have First Nations access only during the spring and the fall and have closures. And you know, I think where the where the problem lies in that again is these approaches should not be exclusive, right? It should not be exclusive access. If we have a problem with parks use, then we need more parks or we need ration parks use, right? We do that with hunting all the time and angling all the time. Like for Chris's example, for a lot of moose hunting opportunities, there'll be a lottery that you put your name in and only a certain number of people get to go. So, the appropriate approach to managing parks and to managing camping is, hey, there's a limited number of sites. We can only take this many people. Um, this park is being overused. Uh, the better solution for the Lower Mainland is to create more green space and more parks because we do not have enough parks for the number of people. But that's again where I think the province has failed to take a principled approach and say, "Hey, if this park is being overused, we need to figure out a way to spread people out."

[00:42:45]And instead, the province took the approach that we're going to make this these times exclusive for First Nations only. And that's where I think we kind of lose the plot is we got to figure out a time and place where everybody can participate. And if parks are being overused, then let's figure out a way to spread people out and get more people on the landscape uh in other areas. Wow.

[00:43:05]You know, that's quite a powerful example again, and there's so many others we could go through here. It's it's really actually overwhelming. So, if people think this is just like a statistical tiny sample of three dots, that's not true. These are a pattern right across the country. Is that a fair comment, Chris? 100%. I think the one thing you'd see from Jesse's example is we're seeing governments across the country having a difficult time having a difficult conversation with different people. They take the easiest path out and hunters and anglers and outdoors enthusiasts normally aren't the outspoken ones that fight back. So I just used the word scapegoat earlier and it's true. So it's easier to eliminate hunters and anglers than sit down with you know mining and forestry and and first nations and all the stakeholders and have difficult conversations that we've somehow lost that in society the ability to have those discussions and come up with a you know a solution that works for everybody. So until we get back to that point we have some problems in this country.

[00:44:08]>> Okay. Well, hence the importance of having this conversation so people can learn, we can increase the awareness about these issues and have a real conversation about them. And I I guess I want to reflect as we you know, we've had quite a conversation today. What are really the principles at stake here? I mean, we talk about the importance of conserving wildlife for instance. We talk about this unique uh inheritance or tradition of having public access. What are other principles that are at stake, Jesse, because you've said this is a really I'm I'm trying to recall the phrase you've used. You've said something like this is a hard stop. This is a very important line to hold if I'm paraphrasing you correctly. What are you getting at here in terms of what's at stake, Jesse? Yeah. Yeah. And so I think I probably the word is hill to die on is probably the word word that I use. And I mean this this concept, you know, when we talk about this concept of common property resources and back to this idea of salmon allocation that salmon are supposed to be managed by the government of Canada on behalf of present and future generations of Canadians. We have examples in recent history within the last 200 years where the British Colonial Office tried to privatize fisheries all around Vancouver Island um to give them to the Hudson Bay Company.

[00:45:29]And we have it in the early 1900s where the province of BC tried to do the exact same thing and privatize fish because they said we own the bed of the lake and it was all stopped.

[00:45:40]So the government of Canada had to sue the province of BC and went in court and the court said no this is a common property resource. It's owned by all Canadians. You cannot give it away just like you give land away. So this principle like I think folks in Canada really need to recognize that our ability to go out in parks, to be able to access rivers, to be able to access lakes, to access oceans, to go hunting and fishing, to go camping th that is not that is not a global thing. That does not happen over all of the parts of the world. And there are a number of places in the world where those things are private and you don't get to do that. So hold on to it near and dear.

[00:46:21]And I think the other piece that we're really missing here in Canada is, you know, if you're out and you're doing something sustainably, i.e. camping, hunting, or fishing, you should probably have a right to do it. Currently, I think Canadians think they have a ton of rights.

[00:46:36]>> They don't. You really don't. When you look at the when you look at the charter, a lot of right like a lot of things that people think they have rights to, they don't.

[00:46:45]>> Okay. So what do you mean in the sense that the solution here is that we not only need to have this conversation to be cleareyed about what's at stake, but enshrine the right for public access to these public lands. Period. Full stop.

[00:47:01]Is that it?

[00:47:01]>> Yep. For sure. Yep. That's it.

[00:47:04]>> Chris, would you agree with that?

[00:47:06]>> 100%. I think the other thing that we have to mention is we can't turn over management to different groups and and stakeholders and and indigenous groups to manage our resources. They have we have to have the ability in society if we're not happy with government the way they manage our resources the ability to unelect them the next election. Right?

[00:47:26]So when we turn over control to different associated management boards, no matter if they're a stakeholder or an industry or a first nation and we lose that ability to unelect them or elect somebody else that we want to manage, how are we going to how are we going to manage this in the future? So we're seeing that with the seal watershed. So if we're going to turn over management to another group, how do we have any input? Right? When you don't have the ability to unelect.

[00:47:50]>> Ah okay. So again, it goes back to the principle, the good public policy principle of transparency. If it's not transparent, you can't have an accountability. And accountability also goes back to a democratically elected system that ensures that if it goes off the rails, it can be corrected. Is that what you're getting at, Chris? 100%. You have to have the ability. So we've seen it before. You know, we don't like the way a government's running something. Uh and the resource side of things, you you vote the other way, right? So we see a different philosophy and it becomes an election issue. When you just turn it over to an appointed board with, you know, disconnect and and no way of unelecting them or taking them away from that decision, how is it ever going to work? It's getting made behind closed doors.

[00:48:34]>> Exly. Yeah. Then you're hooped as a public. You can't even have any uh you can't have any voice to speak into that system and make sure it's functioning well for wildlife, everybody. Um so one of the things that again as I look through this a through a public policy lens, we talk about public choice theory where the whole sense is that in Canada we have a lot of special interests that dominate the public policy uh process.

[00:49:02]The the the special interests drive the outcomes and the public is just you know it their heads are spinning wondering what happened. So in this case, that's one of the lessons of history. And I think Jesse, you're alluding to that.

[00:49:16]But isn't that part of the problem here is we have a kind of a political leadership that is bending over backwards to a variety of special interests and playing politics rather than really bearing on principles of public policy and conservation. Am I am I simplifying this too much? Uh Jesse?

[00:49:35]Uh I mean I guess the first thing is it's not a common property resource if the governance is not democratic right like you're giving that up like you're you're ab ad ab ad ab ad ab ad ab ad ab ad ab ad ab ad ab ad ab ad abdicating your responsibility if if the government is going to say we're going to turn over management to another group or to industry or whoever then then it's not a common property resource then it's a private resource so so I think that's the first piece and uh and on the second piece I mean we have decisions that have gone back for decades and decades and decades here in British Columbia where huge swats of crown land were turned over to forest companies um where we saw these management implications. So this is I guess not our first rodeo. And again it it really comes back to principles. And I think the other principle was good governance, right?

[00:50:22]Democratically elected governance. And and I think maybe that's one of the bigger concerns is is governments are going, you know what, this is too hard for us. We'll hand management over to someone else. And that just that does not work. That is that's that's not that's not our system. That is 100% not our system. Well, I I mean I think related to that, what I find frankly shocking is that our federal government and some provincial governments are enabling the pushing up or access to all kinds of land and resources and excluding any opportunity for anybody to do anything including select um resource development to kind of a a United Nations framework.

[00:51:07]this 3030 initiative that would involve, you know, naming much of Canada, including our marine areas, everything off limits to anybody except maybe a few. I mean, doesn't that epitomize uh taking away any kind of voice at the national level into an international body? Chris, does that make any sense?

[00:51:28]>> Not to me, that's for sure. And you know, we just did polling in Manitoba and and the vast majority want to see our resources managed by our provincial elected government. So they don't want to see the federal government managing.

[00:51:40]We don't want to see the United Nations managing it. So the poll results were were astounding and uh it's it's quite interesting how this and and and back to the management um there's two philosophies like you need to manage our resources versus a protectionist, right?

[00:51:55]So we as hunters and anglers, we realize you need to manage the landscape. Forest fires is a prime example. You need forest fires for regrowth. Uh Jesse's lived this personally and uh and we we understand forest fires like without forest fires, we don't have moose. We don't have the regrowth. You need that, right? So So either do we doing control burning, we're allowing burning to happen or we're doing selective forestry. And just to clarify that that controlled burning enables to pop the seeds within these species of trees and and to regrow them because trees often have a life expectancy depending on the species. So you need forest fires. So it's you know then back to that we we ask for management. We want protected areas but we want them properly managed right. So you know there's a different philosophy from the United Nations drive a fence post in and say nobody access this it's protected now. Well that's a doomed to failure right? We need that disturbance on the landscape and we need them properly managed. So there is a definitely a philosophy from the United Nations that our group doesn't agree with. So well let's get the uh transparency, the accountability and the democratic control as close to the people as possible. We call it subsidiarity and that's again another good public policy principle. So to wrap things up and we've had quite a conversation today gentlemen. I want to ask you, what is the difference that citizens can make when it comes to this area of public policy? We know that it's important. There's jobs at stake.

[00:53:21]There's wildlife. There's relationships with every Canadian, including First Nations. There's a lot at stake here.

[00:53:28]So, what can citizens do to better make a difference in this area? What do you recommend, Jesse?

[00:53:34]>> Yeah. So, so people can get involved, right? Meet with your MLAs, meet with your MPs, let them know how important this is to you. That's it. They don't have a good temperature check. For a lot of our members, this is why they live in British Columbia. This is why they live in Canada. Like, we have members who just go, I'm willing to work harder.

[00:53:52]Like, I'm willing to put in more time, but the reason I live here and not somewhere else is because in the summer I can go salmon fishing or I can go to a rainbow trout river or I can go moose hunting in the fall. And if I can't do those things, what's the point? like why would I live here if I can't go out and get to enjoy those experiences and pass them on to my kids? Once the elected officials know that, I think our world changes dramatically. Um, and I will say on the votes front, both through, you know, in BC there's 110,000 licensed uh, resident hunters, there's over 300,000 saltwater anglers, there's nearly 300,000 freshwater anglers, there's 300,000 plus PL possession actition licensed firearms holders in British Columbia. These people have the ability to control every single provincial election and all of the federal election writings in British Columbia. every election.

[00:54:48]>> Okay. Well, the so the punch line is if you care about these issues, look into them and speak up. Chris, what's your advice on uh what citizens can do? I agree with what Jesse said. The one thing I would add to that though is the municipal elected officials have a very powerful voice and lobby. We learned that through our town hall circuit. So, we had a lot of municipal counselors coming and saying, "Well, we actually don't have any input into this." And we're saying, "You actually do." you know, the provincial governments, the federal governments have to listen to the association of Manitoba municipalities is our group and they actually passed a resolution saying if there's going to be these transfer of public lands, these IPAs, these 3030 initiatives, you must consult with us.

[00:55:31]So that local RMS took that to their annual meeting and had that passed and presented it to the provincial government. So people seem to relate more to their local counselors and it is a local issue. So, uh, we do recommend talking to your local voice and telling them they do have a powerful lobby effort. So, uh, >> okay. So, speak up. You know, it's fascinating. Black Locks Media released this week a fascinating internal poll from the federal government itself saying that trust in institutions, public institutions is at record levels of low. Does it surprise you given the kind of lack of transparency around many of these proposals and initiatives that there's a lack of trust in a lot of our institutions as verified by these recent polls that came out this week? Jesse?

[00:56:23]>> No, we had this conversation actually yesterday. I was talking to one of my board members and there is so much and it really is it's it's a lack it's the lack of principles. It's like hey what do you stand for? what is important to British Columbombians, what is important to Canadians, and that's the missing piece is there's so much stuff that happens behind the scenes. Um it's it's not surprising. It's I mean it's it's having broad effects here in society around things like medicine, science. Um, yeah, people are people are definitely feeling pretty disenfranchised about what's goes on what goes on behind the scenes and and similar to what Chris was referring to is all of a sudden a decision comes out or a process comes out after it's 5 years down the road. Um, involving the public early on big initiatives is is really important. You want to get people on the bus. Um, if you take off on the bus and you try to throw people in when you're doing 90 miles an hour, it doesn't work.

[00:57:22]>> Right on. And Chris, I know that um we've talked uh extensively that a lot of these initiatives and changes are not just simply organic. There's a lot of other parties that are driving these kinds of changes. Chris, does that concern you as well?

[00:57:38]>> It's really concerning. So, when we open the proactive disclosure site from the federal government and look at the money that's allocated to group groups to promote this, uh it's it's outstanding.

[00:57:49]I mean, we're talking, you know, into tens of millions of dollars on the Seal River watershed uh proposal.

[00:57:55]>> Tens of millions of dollars millions of dollars >> is flowing from federal governments.

[00:58:00]Yes. Let alone in some cases provincial governments to fund these groups that are the advocates, the activists advocating for these changes.

[00:58:08]>> And they they've been working on this for for, you know, six, seven years now.

[00:58:12]And we learn about it at the last second. And nobody's financing our group. We're a bunch of volunteers, right? So, you know, you're under you're behind the eightball with the other groups, the federal government flowing that money forth, right? So, and then we what we know with these NOS's is once they get used to that uh flow of cash, they have a tough time walking away from it if they don't fully agree with it.

[00:58:32]Right. So, but but isn't that ironic is that you leaders Jesse and Chris represent a movement that is really the ace card is volunteers, people that are really truly vested in trying to live out the walk of making public access possible in public lands. And the irony is that our own governments are funding in many cases a whole plethora of special interest groups again that are driving these kinds of changes. I mean the irony, you can't make this up. It's like out of a bad movie, isn't it, Chris?

[00:59:07]>> Yeah. And and back to the mistrust of the of the of government. Uh you know, we have there's no wonders of mistrust.

[00:59:14]We have groups writing the ministers and the premier and these different groups about these proposals and they don't even get a response. So instead of having a difficult conversation with somebody and sitting down with them, they just ignore it. They don't even respond, right? So that's what we've seen lately too is, you know, don't have a difficult conversation. Just ignore the problem and and hopefully it goes away. Incredible. So just to wrap up here, what are your handles? Uh Jesse and Chris. Uh Jesse, can you share how people can get a hold of you and and uh your organization and Chris?

[00:59:45]>> Yeah. Yeah. Through the BC Wildife Federation, you can punch it in. will pop out on on any Google search bcwf.bc.ca.

[00:59:52]And the last thing that I would say to folks is um for both of our organizations. We're, you know, we we have a lot of members, but we could always use more. And if people are interested in these things, they should definitely join one of our organizations.

[01:00:05]>> All right. Thank you, Chris. Ours is the same thing. You just Google search Mount Wildlife Federation. It's the same handles. So, >> all right. Well, thank you very much, Jesse Zean and Chris Heel. It's been a pleasure. as we've uh talked about this challenging topic uh for public access on public lands. So, thank you for joining us and for your leadership.

[01:00:25]>> Appreciate that, David.

[01:00:27]>> Thank you so much for watching this uh recent episode. We love your comments and we'd like to hear more from you. If you haven't, make sure you press this bell and subscribe to this channel.

[01:00:37]Check everything out. We'd love to hear more about your comments.