Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 214
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    66

    Hancock Forest Management - New non-motorized permit requirements!

    Real bad news - just learned that Hancock is instituting a new permit for all non-motorized recreational use of their properties in Washington.

    Effective January 1, 2012 a permit will be required to be on their land, including the Snoqualmie property which includes the Tokul trails. Annual permit is $75/person or $150/ family. A little more info is available hereHancock Forest Management

    I know that all user groups and local land managers are getting this info simultaneously and I'll let eveyone know as I learn more.

    Glenn
    Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,121
    Of course I've got lots to say. But, best kept out of print for now...

    The first thing that comes to mind is enforcement though...

    I will say that T-West had probably "dare I say" the best trail conditions of the year out there this afternoon.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Of course I've got lots to say. But, best kept out of print for now...

    The first thing that comes to mind is enforcement though...

    I will say that T-West had probably "dare I say" the best trail conditions of the year out there this afternoon.
    Enforcement will be a function of where you leave your vehicle. Right?
    Wisdom is the domain of the Wiz...which is extinct. FZ

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,121
    Nope Pope.

    You have to have your pass on you at all times. It's a personal pass, not a parking or vehicle one.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    246

    Is there a pending change in the queue ...

    Glenn,

    Are there any pending changes or amendments in the queue (State Legislature's) regarding modifications to Washington State's Recreational Use Statute?

    According to the current language that if Hancock (or any land owner) charges any fees (except for the cutting and removal of firewood which is capped at $25) for recreational use the land owner waives liability protections granted under the statute.

    JD
    The quiver: 2010 Santa Cruz Nomad, 2011 Specialized Demo II, 2011 Canfield Brothers Yelli Screamy.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jimba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    611
    I was wondering the same thing.

    The real downer to this is, each $75 they get is purely profit. it's not like DNR or Wash State parks where they have to pay for park employees and supplies.

    I see it as total corporate greed.

    Unfortunately, I think in enough years to come, we will have to pay to ride just about anywhere. I guess if your weigh in taxes that may just about be the case now?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Welp, looks like we have a new front runner for the Hall of Lame in the ongoing saga that is Tokul.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Hancock link below
    From: About Snoqualmie | Hancock

    All access is generally open from January 1st to December 31st except July 3rd, 4th and 5th. Access is allowed from 1 and 1/2 hours before sunrise to 1 and 1/2 hours after sunset and overnight for up to 14 days in a month with a camping permit.
    That pretty much wipes out night riding in the winter. At it's worst, in mid-December, the sun sets at 4:16 PM, so you gotta finish your "night" ride by 5:46 PM. Even at it's best, who ride at night for just an hour and a half?

  9. #9
    Squeaky Wheel
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,898
    Interesting to read the full rules here:

    http://www.hancockrecreationnw.com/s...Snoqualmie.pdf

    It may be corporate greed, Jimba, but like it or not, it's their land and they get to make the rules. In the big scheme of things, this will generate bupkus revenue for them, so they probably put the fee in place to fund an enforcement person, or weed out those who are not serious about using the place. If you want to buy the land from them and open it back up without a fee I will give you all the moral support you need

    I'll buy a permit because I enjoy riding there many times/year, and also the permit is not setup like the per-vehicle shakedown that the state has going on.

    The rules say no trailbuilding OR maintenance without permission from Hancock. This could be an opportunity to legimitize the trails in there.

    I too wonder about the liability shield, especially since the rules and regs do not have anything about holding Hancock harmless in case of injury.

  10. #10
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,490
    Like others have said, the Rec Immunity Law is the biggest issue I see here.

    I can't imagine any meaningful enforcement though.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    414
    For those just learning about the WA Rec Immunity Law...
    Like myself...
    Rec Use Immunity explanation.
    Seattle Washington Personal Injury Lawyer Legal Articles | Amicus Personae | Supreme Court Update: Recreational Use Immunity | King County, Tacoma, Sea Tac, Olympia

    "RCW 4.24.210 says:
    Any public or private landowners ... who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation ... without charging a fee ... shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users."

    Cheers,
    Mike

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    246

    Timberland designation at risk?

    I am wondering if a land management company puts its Timberland taxation designation at risk for their timberlands if they start generating alternative revenues from that land outside of timber harvest activities?

    I am sure the B&O tax liability on these use fees is negligible but if they themselves are generating revenue based the use of their property can't the appropriate county taxing authority come after them for property taxes because they are now operating a business outside of timber harvesting?

    100,000 acres
    x $2000 per acre of assessed value (I guessed at this value)
    x 1.00%
    = $2,000,000 per year in property taxes

    The state timberland designation shields land owners because they only pay taxes on the value of the timber and only when it is harvested (and they are required to harvest at a minimum rate). In addition I think they pay a fire protection tax but I think that is about it.
    The quiver: 2010 Santa Cruz Nomad, 2011 Specialized Demo II, 2011 Canfield Brothers Yelli Screamy.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,121
    Quote Originally Posted by ebxtreme View Post
    Like others have said, the Rec Immunity Law is the biggest issue I see here.

    I can't imagine any meaningful enforcement though.
    I can imagine what would happen if this was tried at Galbraith though.

  14. #14
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimba View Post
    I was wondering the same thing.

    The real downer to this is, each $75 they get is purely profit. it's not like DNR or Wash State parks where they have to pay for park employees and supplies.

    I see it as total corporate greed.

    Unfortunately, I think in enough years to come, we will have to pay to ride just about anywhere. I guess if your weigh in taxes that may just about be the case now?
    More like employee greed. Hancock is a management company, the funds being managed are institutional investors... things like pensions, endowment funds, foundations, and probably individuals too. If you work somewhere with a defined benefit plan, ask them where the funds are invested - maybe Hancock is managing your $. And, they'll have to spend to enforce this or it'll never work. So definitely not all profit. Maybe even more of an attempt to recoup the costs currently incurred in letting the public have free access, yet having to deal with things like ripping out stunts that magically appear out there.

    Not that I want to pay, but why should private land be open to the public for free? On the other hand, maybe we should be contacting our legislators and asking that public access be required for large timberland holders to qualify for timber property tax programs.

    Very interesting that they seem to be waiving recreation immunity. The biggest problems I see are that very few people will ever hear about this program, they'll never be able to sign every entry point, let alone get people to only enter through the points where one can sign in, and it really sucks for people who might only ride there very infrequently, like out of town guests, etc. The single biggest issue is the very clear prohibition on trail building. Good thing so many game trails are rideable.

  15. #15
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    959
    If I were them, I'd argue that it's an ancillary activity, and that the key issue is that it's still a tree farm. Further, I'd argue that it's really an attempt to mitigate costs incurred by allowing the public to recreate for free

    Back when CLC was trying to purchase the property in 2003 or so, I think the price was about $108 million, so $1K per acre or so. Timber values are correlated with with housing, so should be less now. The KC parcel viewer shows one lot near Lake Marie King County Department of Assessments: eReal Property as having an assessed value of $65K for 314 acres, or $207/acre, and a property tax bill of $800, or $2.50/acre.

    Quote Originally Posted by jdusto View Post
    I am wondering if a land management company puts its Timberland taxation designation at risk for their timberlands if they start generating alternative revenues from that land outside of timber harvest activities?

    I am sure the B&O tax liability on these use fees is negligible but if they themselves are generating revenue based the use of their property can't the appropriate county taxing authority come after them for property taxes because they are now operating a business outside of timber harvesting?

    100,000 acres
    x $2000 per acre of assessed value (I guessed at this value)
    x 1.00%
    = $2,000,000 per year in property taxes

    The state timberland designation shields land owners because they only pay taxes on the value of the timber and only when it is harvested (and they are required to harvest at a minimum rate). In addition I think they pay a fire protection tax but I think that is about it.

  16. #16
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    959
    I see beer is now banned on Hancock lands too.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,121
    Evergreen should call an "All Hands Meeting" and scrape up the 65K to buy that 314 acres. That's dirt cheap when you look at the cost of Duthie at roughly half that size.

    No beer?

    Woodway, I take "trail enhancement" as written to mean no features built on trails. But, it doesn't mean no maintenaince. At least she's acknowledging the trails exist because that was a sticking point in the last MS Ride negotiation that fell flat in 2006.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Evergreen should call an "All Hands Meeting" and scrape up the 65K to buy that 314 acres. That's dirt cheap when you look at the cost of Duthie at roughly half that size.
    65K is how much it cost to put in Cuss Hollow.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  19. #19
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Evergreen should call an "All Hands Meeting" and scrape up the 65K to buy that 314 acres. That's dirt cheap when you look at the cost of Duthie at roughly half that size.

    No beer?

    Woodway, I take "trail enhancement" as written to mean no features built on trails. But, it doesn't mean no maintenaince. At least she's acknowledging the trails exist because that was a sticking point in the last MS Ride negotiation that fell flat in 2006.
    Note, that's assessed value per King County, not a sale listing.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,121
    I know. I already had an Evergreen member e-mail me asking if they could buy it for the club though.

    And, careful Skooks, Cuss is/was about one millionth of the cost of that pseudo trail thingy you are working on.

  21. #21
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,955
    $75 each to pay for enforcement is BS.

    We need a Group Rate for Evergreen Members!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Cuss is/was about one millionth of the cost of that pseudo trail thingy you are working on.
    As of today, taking away the cost of the material on the starting gate, Deuces has cost the grant less than a thousand dollars. There are key factors in why that is but donation time/resources/equipment, volunteering, and the trail being completely dirt has to do with it. So with the pavers you used on Cuss, Deuces from the starting gate down, cost about the same.

    Back to Tokul, i've respected closures for Victor Falls, Griffin Creek and others. i'll respect Tokul as well because i really can't afford that kind of expense. But even if i could, there is absolutely no value in offering that kind of money for what exists in there.

    i have fond memories of riding in there with my friend as we replenished the bra trail with all of her garments a decade ago when hardly anyone even knew about it. As well as my first BBTC work party at Half Bench.

    i love what they did with the new stuff and i'll miss a few of the trails. But at the same time it's private property, and if someone asks or infers you to leave.(by asking a steep price with no value) Then unless something get's worked out it's time to go.

    i hope we as a community use what's happening here and are motivated to help where things are better. We've got private land managers with the church, and Pastor Steve has been really cool. One of his wishes for his land is to provide the community with a positive outlet in recreation. It's a really good situation, and one with alot of stability as land manager and user want the same thing.

    i think FM's idea is a good one, i hope it works out, it would be beneficial. Would finally prompt Evergreen to issue membership cards, which could be used for other cool things too. But i can't help but be cynical because i doubt Hancocks wish is to give back to the community in the same way Pastor Steve is. And really in no way should it be required for them, they are trying to turn a buck on timber, that's it. i mean it really sucks, and i don't like it, but it is what it is. If the land managers and the user-groups aren't aligned there isn't any recourse to it really, like when it's public land.
    Last edited by Skookum; 11-04-2011 at 03:52 PM.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  23. #23
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    605
    Sounds like a good opportunity for somene from EMBA to write a short piece for Dirt Rag's "Access Action" segment. Could highlight the good things happening w/ the Church land and the unfortunate things happening w/ the Hancock lands.

    The recent access struggles around Galbraith got some decent press a few issues ago I thought. An opportunity exists for something similar for access around the Seattle area.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    782
    I'm guessing trail maintenance will slow quite a bit with these fees, right? is riding there going to be worth it after a few wind storms blow through this winter?

    I will get another ride out there and will make it my last. A real bummer as I was just becoming more interested in riding there.

    I can't believe the camping and motorized costs. You need the camping/motorized permit PLUS the individual permit.

    I'm pretty dissapointed as Tokul East is probably a 10 minute drive. Also, I was loking at the directions for the entry gate. Its super far from the trails I know (flowtron 3k, Last frontier, Crazy Ivan, mud creek).

    Is there people we can email about this direction they are going? There's a form on the contact us page, but I want to email someone directly to express disappointment and ask for reconsideration

    -joel

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jimba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    611
    Click on the link ggluv posted in his original post at the top, then hit the contact us and send a message to them, that's what I did.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. VA State Forest Use Permit
    By MTBigSky in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 05:40 AM
  2. VA State Forest Use Permit?
    By Trizz in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 09:36 AM
  3. North Mills River Forest Management Proposal
    By Mike Brown in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-21-2009, 07:40 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-16-2008, 03:51 PM
  5. Southern California Forest Management Plan
    By TCB in forum California - Socal
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-04-2005, 11:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •