The High Court at Wellington yesterday ruled a pastoral lease, issued under the Lands Act 1948, did provide for exclusive possession for the lessee.
This followed a hearing of the case in March where Fish and Game dropped its claim that pastoral leases allowed public access, provided the access did not interfere with lessees' exclusive right of patronage.
Federated Farmers high country section chairman Donald Aubrey said the High Court decision was "unequivocal" in its ruling the lessees had exclusive possession of their leasehold land.
He said farmers had told him they were not impressed Fish and Game took the case, spending fishing and hunting licence fees in the process.
"Sadly, this case does not reflect well on Fish and Game.
In my opinion, this is not an appropriate use of their resources, and it has done nothing for the relationship between Fish and Game and high country farmers," Mr Aubrey said.
Fish and Game chief executive Bryce Johnson said he was still to read the judgement in detail, but felt the case had achieved a goal of clarifying the issue of whether pastoral lessees had exclusive possession.
"It was important we sought clarification through a declarity judgement," Mr Johnson said.
He justified taking the case, saying a fundamental principle of the organisation was to advocate for public access.
He said he would consult lawyers before deciding whether to appeal.
In his judgement, Justice France said pastoral leases were consistent with a land leasing arrangement.
The land leasing arrangement conferred exclusive possession to the farmer.
"The obligations the lessee undertakes would make it surprising if he or she were obtaining only a licence to occupy."
A lessee was more than someone authorised to graze the land, but was required to farm the property, to improve it and keep it pest free, Justice France said.
"The lessee farmer, subject to very little exception, is entitled to renewals of this lease forever on the same conditions and terms.
"It is unrealistic to suggest that anything other than legal or exclusive possession is thereby given to the lessee."
The Crown maintained control over the land to preserve it environmentally, and any proposed use other than pasturage required Crown consent.
But a clear indication of the relationship between lessor and lessee was that a recreation permit granted by the Crown to a third party required the consent of the lessee of the land.
"The need to obtain a lessee's consent is, in my view, a very clear indication of the nature of the lessees' possession."
Fish and Game argued a leasehold agreement gave farmers the right to pasturage along with incidental uses arising from that, but the Crown retained legal possession and could give other people access to the land.
If that argument were proven, Fish and Game would then be in a position to approach the Crown to allow greater public access over high country stations.
The plaintiff argued pastoral leases were not common law, but rights, to use Crown land for pastoral purposes; and the only express right was to pasturage.
This was the second decision to go in the favour of high country farmers.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright, last month released a report largely in favour of high country farmer stewardship of the land.
Pastoral lessees were still waiting for a decision by the Land Valuation Tribunal on the method of setting rents.