Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1
    Justin Vander Pol
    Reputation: juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,396

    Hancock Rangers - you better get your pass for Tokul

    Hey everyone, just a heads up that Hancock is in fact out there patrolling and checking to see that you have your Hancock/Snoqualmie Forest recreation pass.

    I was out doing an exploration ride at Spur 10 (no trails, just road) with 3 friends and when we got back to the gate, the Hancock Ranger stopped us and checked for passes. 3 of us had purchased passes, and 2 of us actually had them printed out. Turns out you need them printed out. It's no fun to get your ID checked and told you're trespassing, so get your passes if you ride out there.

    This wasn't at Tokul, rather on a road a few miles away, but they know where all the bike trails are and I wouldn't be surprised if they're out there from time to time checking passes for bikers.

    More info here: Trail:Tokul East - Evergreen Trail Guide

    Go here to buy your pass: Hancock Forest Management
    Issaquah & Seattle real estate agent. Buy or sell a home with me and I donate $500 to Evergreen MTB Alliance
    jvpRE.com

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,809
    Are they spending more on enforcement than they're making on pass sales?
    There's a big difference between ripping and skidding. Those who skid don't know how to ride.

  3. #3
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,976
    This certainly doesn't motivate me to spend $75, or spend any more time or effort making Hancock properties profitable for them, as a destination for bikers.

    I hope that Hancock is considering what they need to do to make make a $75 pass attractive, not just for riders, but for trail builders and maintainers as well.

    I've said it before.... People would pay a lot more than $75 to ride and build really great trails, which may involve gaps, woodwork, machine-built trails and lots of XC miles. $75 a year to "maintain" destroyed trails on clearcut, which can't be ridden at night, is ridiculous.

    Pay to ride is fair, build for free is fair, but pay to build?
    Too many other great opportunities to build with no such BS.

    Anyways thanks for the update!

  4. #4
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    969
    Eyeing up that hillside huh?

  5. #5
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    This certainly doesn't motivate me to spend $75, or spend any more time or effort making Hancock properties profitable for them, as a destination for bikers.

    I hope that Hancock is considering what they need to do to make make a $75 pass attractive, not just for riders, but for trail builders and maintainers as well.

    I've said it before.... People would pay a lot more than $75 to ride and build really great trails, which may involve gaps, woodwork, machine-built trails and lots of XC miles. $75 a year to "maintain" destroyed trails on clearcut, which can't be ridden at night, is ridiculous.

    Pay to ride is fair, build for free is fair, but pay to build?
    Too many other great opportunities to build with no such BS.

    Anyways thanks for the update!
    yeah, and paying after Hancock collected $20 million from King County for development rights blows even more. I get why Hancock wants the $, too bad KC didn't have the foresight to negotiate for public access when they were writing the check.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    202

    Did we give up?

    Last I heard, sit tight, EMBA is working with Hancock. Is this official then, there will be no special consideration for EMBA members to ride at Tokul?

    Also wondering, if the so-called rangers were patrolling on roads, were those private roads belonging to Hancock, or were they conveniently waiting at the check points to the private land? Likely a losing cause even to ask, but if they were on forest land or road leading to private land, they would be out of their jurisdiction to ask for permits. It matters to me, because I don't want to find myself being accosted on an unmarked forest road having no indication of permits, as the boundary needs to be clearly marked if they are to cite one for trespassing. Kind of a big deal, I'm not buying a permit, but will ride forest roads if not marked as private.

    Thanks Juice for the notice.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,151
    Still a divisive subject. This is the only report I have heard of any encounter since the permit process became public. So, I'd say the odds are in the favor of not seeing any enforcement personnel at all. Signage is way up over in T-West though. But, still non-existant in other Hancock properties.
    Ken, Glenn assures me talks are continuing and, dare I say, perhaps going well? But, I for one will be skeptical until I see major changes in policy and offers for some "bang for our buck". If this was all about revenue, lowering the cost to 30-40 bucks and allowing a relationship like the one up on Galbraith would go a long way to make a lot more money for Hancock.

  8. #8
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Still a divisive subject. This is the only report I have heard of any encounter since the permit process became public. So, I'd say the odds are in the favor of not seeing any enforcement personnel at all. Signage is way up over in T-West though. But, still non-existant in other Hancock properties.
    Ken, Glenn assures me talks are continuing and, dare I say, perhaps going well? But, I for one will be skeptical until I see major changes in policy and offers for some "bang for our buck". If this was all about revenue, lowering the cost to 30-40 bucks and allowing a relationship like the one up on Galbraith would go a long way to make a lot more money for Hancock.
    Dang it, I agree with you on this one.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    522
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    This is the only report I have heard of any encounter since the permit process became public. So, I'd say the odds are in the favor of not seeing any enforcement personnel at all.
    Could also be that they were waiting for the nicer weather and for logging to be completed. Just because nobody saw any enforcement January through early April doesn't mean that seeing one in late April is an isolated occurrence. Could just be the sign of things to come.

  10. #10
    I should be out riding
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by EnduroDoug View Post
    Could also be that they were waiting for the nicer weather and for logging to be completed. Just because nobody saw any enforcement January through early April doesn't mean that seeing one in late April is an isolated occurrence. Could just be the sign of things to come.
    I've assumed from the start that at some point there would have to be visible enforcement, or the scheme would never work. It's also doubtful it'll be continual though unless they really do want to spend boatloads more on enforcement than received in user fees. Of course if they were serious about selling user fees they'd also make sure the website worked. Last ride out I intended to buy a pass 1st, but the site was down, and I see they're moving servers this week.

    Over at West the amount of signage has a seriously negative impact on my Wilderness experience.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    423
    Quote Originally Posted by ACree View Post
    Over at West the amount of signage has a seriously negative impact on my Wilderness experience.
    What? You think Pink and Yellow signs clash?
    At very least, they could've taken down the Pink signs when they put the Yellow ones up.

    FWIW, the last 3 weeks, I've been up in T West about 4 days a week and have never seen any Rangers.

    Cheers,
    Mike

  12. #12
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,976
    Quote Originally Posted by mbcracken View Post
    FWIW, the last 3 weeks, I've been up in T West about 4 days a week and have never seen any Rangers.
    The frequency of enforcement is irrelevant, if the consequences are severe enough. Make sure to read the fine print:

    Quote Originally Posted by From Hancock's website
    Individual Non-motorized Recreation Access Rules and Regulations for Snoqualmie Forest

    1. This permit allows access to Snoqualmie Forest by foot, animal or bicycle. Permit is for the personal use of an individual and is non-transferable. Permit only allows access to the property for the permit holder.IF PERMIT HOLDER ALLOWS ANY OTHER PERSON TO ENTER THE PROPERTY, THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY REVOKED.

    2. A signed permit must be in the possession of the permit holder and permit holder will show permit and photo identification to any law enforcement officer and/or any representative of Hancock as requested. Permit will not be replaced for any reason.

    3. Access dates are from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. Access is allowed any day of the week from one and one half hours before sunrise to one and one half hours after sunset. No access is allowed on July 3rd, 4th or 5th. The property owners reserve the right to limit or prohibit access to any portion of the property due to safety, fire hazard, extreme weather or other asset protection reason. Property owners may add or delete access areas by posting signs as the only notification to permit holders.

    4. Permit holder may not ride in any motorized vehicle while on Snoqualmie Forest while accessing property with a Non-motorized Recreation Access permit. Failure to abide by this rule will result in loss of Non-motorized Recreation Access permit and driver of vehicle to loose Motorized Vehicle Recreation Access permit.

    5. Permit holder may not build new trails or enhance existing trails without written permission from Hancock Forest Management.

    6. Permit holder may not or permit others to: (i) Use or possess (whether on his or her person or in a vehicle) alcohol or illegal drugs while on the property; or (ii) enter or remain on the property while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. In addition to above, RCW 46.61.519 and RCW 46.61.005 apply while on property.

    7. No fires, open flame, fireworks or any other items or activities that may cause fires. Smoking is not allowed.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    15. Permit holder must abide by all signs posted on the property and the instructions of any Hancock Forest Management employee or representative.

    16. Permit holder must abide by all modifications to these rules and regulations. Permit holder must report any accident that occurs while on property to Hancock office at 1-800-782-1493.

    17. VIOLATION OF THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS WILL, AT THE DISCRETION OF HANCOCK FOREST MANAGEMENT, RESULT IN THE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. ALL SALES ARE FINAL; REFUNDS WILL NOT BE GIVEN FOR ANY REASON.
    Consider the implications... if you have a permit and are caught riding with a friend who does not have a permit, they will kick you out, and may revoke your permit.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,151
    I have personally been told by Glenn that this has been discussed in negotiations with Hancock and is not the case.... You are not responsible for other folks. (As it should be...)

  14. #14
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    I have personally been told by Glenn that this has been discussed in negotiations with Hancock and is not the case.... You are not responsible for other folks. (As it should be...)
    Thats good news, but I believe not consistent with what Juice's experience.

    It sure seems like Hancock has a lot of kinks to work out.
    Again there's just not much incentive currently to pay $75 for clearcut trails, even if they are backpedaling on their ridiculous enforcement policy.

    Offering free access for Evergreen-sponsored trail-building and maintenance crews would be a good start, and would ultimately help make Hancock money. That would pretty much be a requirement for me, before I shell out any money towards a pass or ride there again.

  15. #15
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,492
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    1. This permit allows access to Snoqualmie Forest by foot, animal or bicycle. Permit is for the personal use of an individual and is non-transferable. Permit only allows access to the property for the permit holder.IF PERMIT HOLDER ALLOWS ANY OTHER PERSON TO ENTER THE PROPERTY, THIS PERMIT SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY REVOKED.

    FM, because they've allowed vehicle access for fishing and hunting in the past (via Gate 10), I believe that particular item relates to those that get gate access in their cars. This has always been the rule for those that purchased gate access for the Snoqualmie tree farm and also the one down near Kapowsin. So, only those with permits can be in said vehicles. I seem to remember those were ~$200 for those permits.

    EB

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,151
    Agreed.....

    Don't know if the "enforcer" was a DNR guy, a F&W guy, a Sherriff, or some Hancock rent-a-cop either. Making sure the enfrorcers know the rules is relative too.

  17. #17
    FM
    FM is offline
    luxatio erecta
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,976
    Quote Originally Posted by ebxtreme View Post
    FM, because they've allowed vehicle access for fishing and hunting in the past (via Gate 10), I believe that particular item relates to those that get gate access in their cars.
    If you buy a non-motorized pass via the Hancock website, accepting these requirements are part of the check-out process and are unique for each pass type.

    I also agree that it's all relative, and the fine print is only just that, until enforcement takes it to the letter and somebodies pass gets revoked, or photographed & recorded as a "first offense". It didn't sound like Juice & co had a pleasant experience with the enforcement, and they were all kicked off the property promptly although the majority of them had purchased passes.

    Again I am not against Hancock's right to charge for access, and not against buying a pass, but at this time there's very little incentive to riders or builders to do so.

    Here are the "Non-motorized Rules and Regulations for Individuals on Hancock Snoqualmie properties"
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Hancock Rangers - you better get your pass for Tokul-hancock.jpg  


  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    423
    While you all were contemplating unknowns...I was able to get up and finish cleaning up Outback Ext. with my permit. Cut out two more logs and finished raking.
    The only trails needing braking are Upper Outback, Upper Beaver Pond and Pink Ribbon.
    Let me know if you want to know where the rakes are...

    Cheers,
    Mike

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,151
    No Mousetrap?

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    423
    I'm planning on doing Mousetrap tomorrow morning. Doubtful that any here will be joining me so I left it off the list. :-)

    Cheers,
    Mike

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Offering free access for Evergreen-sponsored trail-building and maintenance crews would be a good start, and would ultimately help make Hancock money. That would pretty much be a requirement for me, before I shell out any money towards a pass or ride there again.
    Why should Evergreen be in the business to help Hancock turn a profit though.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Skookum View Post
    Why should Evergreen be in the business to help Hancock turn a profit though.
    You're scaring me Skooks. This is two agreements in one week.

    I had the same conversation with Glenn a while back.

    There does need to be some balance though. Some sort of mutual benefit like the Galby folks have going so well. (For free...) The local Hancock property has immense potential for a great nearby trail system for all abilities from spanx wearing XC dirt roadies to Monster fueled homies pushing big rigs for some coasting. All without the BS that comes with years of paperwork on DNR or FS lands. That's pretty tempting.

  23. #23
    Justin Vander Pol
    Reputation: juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    The frequency of enforcement is irrelevant, if the consequences are severe enough. Make sure to read the fine print:



    Consider the implications... if you have a permit and are caught riding with a friend who does not have a permit, they will kick you out, and may revoke your permit.
    The ranger guy didn't go this direction with us. Those of us who had permits were just fine, even though one of us didn't have the permit.
    Issaquah & Seattle real estate agent. Buy or sell a home with me and I donate $500 to Evergreen MTB Alliance
    jvpRE.com

  24. #24
    Justin Vander Pol
    Reputation: juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    It didn't sound like Juice & co had a pleasant experience with the enforcement, and they were all kicked off the property promptly although the majority of them had purchased passes.
    No, we weren't kicked off. We were right back to our cars and on our way home when he checked our passes.

    This was on Hancock land, but right at the access gate where the Hancock roads intersected with the county road.

    The Hancock security guy went all mustache and aviators on the one guy who didn't have a pass, but was fine with the rest of us.

    One of the guys with me sent a letter to Hancock expressing displeasure with how this was handled. A Hancock manager personally called him and expressed their regret that this was an unpleasant experience. It sounds like they really do want to make this work for bikers. I think it is a really good sign that someone higher up at Hancock saw this as important enough to make that phone call.
    Issaquah & Seattle real estate agent. Buy or sell a home with me and I donate $500 to Evergreen MTB Alliance
    jvpRE.com

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,151
    Quote Originally Posted by juice View Post
    No, we weren't kicked off. We were right back to our cars and on our way home when he checked our passes.

    This was on Hancock land, but right at the access gate where the Hancock roads intersected with the county road.

    The Hancock security guy went all mustache and aviators on the one guy who didn't have a pass, but was fine with the rest of us.

    One of the guys with me sent a letter to Hancock expressing displeasure with how this was handled. A Hancock manager personally called him and expressed their regret that this was an unpleasant experience. It sounds like they really do want to make this work for bikers. I think it is a really good sign that someone higher up at Hancock saw this as important enough to make that phone call.
    And, you were not threatened with losing your passes for having a passless one amongst you? The subject never came up?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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