Jump to content

Hancock to charge for hiking


AndrewRJ

Recommended Posts

I havn't seen anyone else mention this, but Hancock Timber has long had the ability to drive behind their gates (at least in the Snoqualmie area) if you bought a motorized access permit. (currently $225)

 

Looks like starting at the beginning of the year they have decided to charge the hikers, biker and equestrians as well.

 

here is the link to the permit information.

 

So basically its now $75 to hike to Fuller Mtn and onto any other Hancock Property off of the North Fork Road.

Edited by AndrewRJ
Link to comment

Their website lists this as the area they are talking about:

 

"Snoqualmie Forest is generally located north of Soqualmie and North Bend, east of Carnation and Duvall, south of Highway 2 and and west of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area as shown on the vicinity map. A detailed map of Snoqualmie Forest will be sent when you purchase your permit."

 

That is a REALLY huge area.

It's 75.00 for one person, 150. for a married couple.

 

I wonder if they've got any deal with the county or state where they allow access to their lands. If so, I wonder if this is in violation of any such deal. It would be great if someone with great internet skills could find this out.

Link to comment

It's 75.00 for one person, 150. for a married couple.

 

I wonder if they've got any deal with the county or state where they allow access to their lands. If so, I wonder if this is in violation of any such deal. It would be great if someone with great internet skills could find this out.

Married couple. How quaint. (Their language, I know).

 

There are conservation easements on some of their land, but there is no language that ensures public access to the areas with easements. If you want to blame someone, all the unauthorized MTB trails and ORVs going around locked gates, etc, are good places to start. But whatever the reason, they've apparently decided to stop treating public access as a nuisance and start managing it as a revenue source.

 

Casual users are not the target market. Heavy users, such as those that ride Tokul frequently, are.

 

 

Link to comment

:unsure: It boils down to those that Dump Trash, Poachers, Shooters who do not clean up but leave their crap and Homeless setting up camps. It is amazing just how many people feel the forest are their Dumping areas. It is only going to get worse. So if you want to spend time in the forest get use to paying to play.

 

Sorry... Not everyone Packs it in & Packs it out. :huh:

Link to comment

get use to paying to play.

Sounds like a libertarian paradise.

 

When timber companies morph into "Forest Management" groups, which are in turn subsidiaries of "vertically integrated, full-service timberland investment advisory" firms who've hired Project Managers tasked with "an emphasis on developing alternative revenue streams", there is a predictable outcome.

Link to comment

get use to paying to play.

Sounds like a libertarian paradise.

 

When timber companies morph into "Forest Management" groups, which are in turn subsidiaries of "vertically integrated, full-service timberland investment advisory" firms who've hired Project Managers tasked with "an emphasis on developing alternative revenue streams", there is a predictable outcome.

I didn't know the timber companies had adopted Micro-speak! :lol:

 

Seriously, I'm really bummed by this news. And I bet MtnMutt is right about some of the primary concerns.

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

get use to paying to play.

Sounds like a libertarian paradise.

 

When timber companies morph into "Forest Management" groups, which are in turn subsidiaries of "vertically integrated, full-service timberland investment advisory" firms who've hired Project Managers tasked with "an emphasis on developing alternative revenue streams", there is a predictable outcome.

I didn't know the timber companies had adopted Micro-speak! :lol:

 

Seriously, I'm really bummed by this news. And I bet MtnMutt is right about some of the primary concerns.

 

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the thought that a $75 fee is going to stop the dumpers, poachers, homeless camps, shooters and the ATV riders. Are they not violating some sort of rule or regulation now? Asking for a $75 fee will also be ignored. Unless of course they have a resident army to secure the property. The fee will be effective on deterring the type of folks you want using the land for recreational uses, not the type of people you don't want to use the land.

Link to comment

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the thought that a $75 fee is going to stop the dumpers, poachers, homeless camps, shooters and the ATV riders. Are they not violating some sort of rule or regulation now? Asking for a $75 fee will also be ignored. Unless of course they have a resident army to secure the property. The fee will be effective on deterring the type of folks you want using the land for recreational uses, not the type of people you don't want to use the land.

All the negative activity has a price and it is unfortunate that those responsible are generally not the ones to pay it. People have already reported running into "rangers". I'm sure they can get some pretty good coverage since they control all the choke points.

 

Link to comment

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the thought that a $75 fee is going to stop the dumpers, poachers, homeless camps, shooters and the ATV riders. Are they not violating some sort of rule or regulation now? Asking for a $75 fee will also be ignored. Unless of course they have a resident army to secure the property. The fee will be effective on deterring the type of folks you want using the land for recreational uses, not the type of people you don't want to use the land.

All the negative activity has a price and it is unfortunate that those responsible are generally not the ones to pay it. People have already reported running into "rangers". I'm sure they can get some pretty good coverage since they control all the choke points.

That means that all the choke points they are aware of will need to be manned 24/7. Dumpers work at night, some of the other activity will be on weekends, some during the week. Homeless camps may well use entry points that are not on the maps. I'm sure the "rangers" will effect some deterrence, but they will not be 100% unless they are frequently and clearly visible. And I do agree that ones that are responsible will not be paying.

Link to comment

That means that all the choke points they are aware of will need to be manned 24/7. Dumpers work at night, some of the other activity will be on weekends, some during the week. Homeless camps may well use entry points that are not on the maps. I'm sure the "rangers" will effect some deterrence, but they will not be 100% unless they are frequently and clearly visible. And I do agree that ones that are responsible will not be paying.

Shaking down the taxpayers is not quite as lucrative these days, so they're moving to a more direct model and they're shaking down anyone passing by. And they'll have the Sheriffs to back them up.

 

The motivation being homeless camps, dumping, etc, is just speculation.

 

There has been a sharp increase in the number of non-permitted recreational users using our property over the last few years. The non-motorized permit is designed to treat all users equitably while establishing rules for appropriate behavior while on the property. It is our goal to provide a quality recreational experience for all users, whether they drive on in a car with a motorized permit or hike, ride or bicycle on the property with a non-motorized permit.

Link to comment

Landowners - be it timber companies or timber holding companies or ranchers or irrigation districts etc etc - have found out that going through the courts dealing with trespassers, bum camps, poachers and such will get them no where. Yes, the culprit will be issued a trespass citation or such but the court keeps the funds leaving the landowner holding the bag for the cleanup.

 

As I understand it, by charging a "fee" for access, anyone caught without the required permit can be charged with "Theft of Services" and be hit with triple damages plus the landowner can go after reasonable cleanup fees.

Link to comment

Snoqualmie Updates :mad:

 

Snoqualmie permits go on sale December 1 at 6 am. Permits are for sale only on line. For more information, see the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions).

 

Starting January 1, 2012 all access will require a permit including access by bicycling, walking and horseback. See Non-motorized access tab for details.

 

:blink: Yep... they have started patrolling the North Fork roads.

Link to comment

Any one up for a bicycle ride to Getting Loony at Calligan Lake on Saturday before the close the forest? I got as far as Half Way Up to Calligan Lake earlier this summer before I had to turn around due to active logging.

 

I'm plan on being at the Spur 11 gate (N47 34.471 W121 44.156) between 0800 & 0830 Saturday morning.

Ah Carp

 

I just got reminded of a b-day party I have to go to this Sat. Sorry Jeff, have fun.

Link to comment

So if I wanted to hike up the North Fork this weekend to where the Bare Mtn Lookout used to stand, can someone tell me how close can I get before hitting a closed gate without paying any money?

There shouldn't be any gates before the trail-head, but there may be other obstacles 4 miles before the trail-head check out this thread on NWHikers.net

Good info, thanks for the link!

Link to comment

Any one up for a bicycle ride to Getting Loony at Calligan Lake on Saturday before the close the forest? I got as far as Half Way Up to Calligan Lake earlier this summer before I had to turn around due to active logging.

 

I'm plan on being at the Spur 11 gate (N47 34.471 W121 44.156) between 0800 & 0830 Saturday morning.

 

I think we'll try to be there. $75 each is steep and we wanted to get up to that lake.

Edited by GrnXnham
Link to comment

Indeed it looks like a nice place to visit. You have peaked my interest (that and reading the NWHikers report). Would you mind posting here when you get back to let us know conditions? I may try to squeeze it in before the end of the year.

My little Ranger made it all the way to the Bare Mtn Trailhead. Rain turned to snow about 1,200' and there was about 6" at the TH. I backed up the last 1/2 mile because I found a place I knew I could turn around, but wasn't ready to call it quits. We didn't make the top due to conditions, turned around at 4,000' and enjoyed a couple short glisades.

Link to comment

I have not done enough research but this may effect the ability to drive from Sultan/Startup area via those roads in.

I thought that had been gated for many years. I'm thinking of the route via Gate 10 and up what Hancock calls the "Mainline" road. Is there another route?

 

(There was, in more recent years, a way to get through from the Marckworth Forest/Stossel Creek Road up to the Ben Howard Rd. near Sultan, but that's now gated about midway and also probably not what you were referring to.)

 

On topic, I think the new permit scheme is unfortunate, but ultimately I can't fault them for wanting to find a new revenue stream for their private property. Theoretically, this could lead to further development of recreation opportunities displacing some logging activities. Maybe. Okay, probably not.

Link to comment

Found out the hard way that they are also applying the fee to their land at Baldy Mt near Enumclaw. Fortunately the by the hard way I mean only driving a long way to then be blocked from the land and grabbing the old caches up there that I wanted to find.

 

I must assume then that they have other pieces land elsewhere where they are doing the same...

Link to comment

Found out the hard way that they are also applying the fee to their land at Baldy Mt near Enumclaw. Fortunately the by the hard way I mean only driving a long way to then be blocked from the land and grabbing the old caches up there that I wanted to find.

 

I must assume then that they have other pieces land elsewhere where they are doing the same...

Looking at their website it only looks like they are only charging the non-motorized access fee on their Snoqualmie and White River farms. Eatonville & Kapowsin appear to be only selling the Motorized access permit but you need the Motorized access permit for any type of access on those two farms. Access Info

Link to comment

Found out the hard way that they are also applying the fee to their land at Baldy Mt near Enumclaw. Fortunately the by the hard way I mean only driving a long way to then be blocked from the land and grabbing the old caches up there that I wanted to find.

 

I must assume then that they have other pieces land elsewhere where they are doing the same...

Looking at their website it only looks like they are only charging the non-motorized access fee on their Snoqualmie and White River farms. Eatonville & Kapowsin appear to be only selling the Motorized access permit but you need the Motorized access permit for any type of access on those two farms. Access Info

 

The White River runs through Enumclaw and near Baldy so that fits. Not sure if they have more property down that way.

 

Does that really read a separate fee for both properties! Wow, purely in it for the money

Link to comment

I'm kind of wondering how paying somewhere between $75.00 and $350.00 per person/vehicle, depending on the tract and the type of access, does not fall afoul of the commercial cache guidelines. At least one recently updated cache on Hancock land is owned by a reviewer, so apparently it's OK.

Link to comment

I'm kind of wondering how paying somewhere between $75.00 and $350.00 per person/vehicle, depending on the tract and the type of access, does not fall afoul of the commercial cache guidelines. At least one recently updated cache on Hancock land is owned by a reviewer, so apparently it's OK.

Very good point, especially since it's private land therefore a private, profit generating fee. And the fee is directly tied to a person and required for access while the state fee, the Discovery Pass, is linked to parking or using a particular vehicle and the land can technically be accessed for free. Also, the state fee is not about profit but about paying for services similar to a tax.

 

Personally, not sure how I feel about grandfathering caches. The precedent is to allow grandfathering, which I will support because otherwise we will lose all the grandfathered caches within State Parks and the wilderness. On the other hand, the cache you're talking about was placed just days before the new fee and while I think that technically puts it within the grandfather clause the placement be considered in poor taste particularly because of the CO's reviewer status and the fact that they should be setting an example for all of us

Link to comment

Found out the hard way that they are also applying the fee to their land at Baldy Mt near Enumclaw. Fortunately the by the hard way I mean only driving a long way to then be blocked from the land and grabbing the old caches up there that I wanted to find.

 

I must assume then that they have other pieces land elsewhere where they are doing the same...

Looking at their website it only looks like they are only charging the non-motorized access fee on their Snoqualmie and White River farms. Eatonville & Kapowsin appear to be only selling the Motorized access permit but you need the Motorized access permit for any type of access on those two farms. Access Info

 

The White River runs through Enumclaw and near Baldy so that fits. Not sure if they have more property down that way.

 

Does that really read a separate fee for both properties! Wow, purely in it for the money

 

A subtle but important point came up in discussion with a friend while we hunted caches up the North Fork Snoqualmie River just before the fee went into place.

 

The road used for public access there seems to be a NF road and we determined that likely is such because it provides access to National Forest land at the road end. Also according to Google Maps there is an isolated pieced of NF land that can only be accessed via the road. I had always wondered about that fact that there is a parallel road accessing the valley (Tolt Reservoir Road) and it is the one primarily used by logging trucks and I see that it fits - NF road for public use, their own road for their logging trucks.

 

If true, then technically the fee is not necessary to be on or drive along the road and only necessary when stepping off the road and onto Hancock land.

 

Can anyone verify this?

Link to comment

Found out the hard way that they are also applying the fee to their land at Baldy Mt near Enumclaw. Fortunately the by the hard way I mean only driving a long way to then be blocked from the land and grabbing the old caches up there that I wanted to find.

 

I must assume then that they have other pieces land elsewhere where they are doing the same...

Looking at their website it only looks like they are only charging the non-motorized access fee on their Snoqualmie and White River farms. Eatonville & Kapowsin appear to be only selling the Motorized access permit but you need the Motorized access permit for any type of access on those two farms. Access Info

 

The White River runs through Enumclaw and near Baldy so that fits. Not sure if they have more property down that way.

 

Does that really read a separate fee for both properties! Wow, purely in it for the money

 

A subtle but important point came up in discussion with a friend while we hunted caches up the North Fork Snoqualmie River just before the fee went into place.

 

The road used for public access there seems to be a NF road and we determined that likely is such because it provides access to National Forest land at the road end. Also according to Google Maps there is an isolated pieced of NF land that can only be accessed via the road. I had always wondered about that fact that there is a parallel road accessing the valley (Tolt Reservoir Road) and it is the one primarily used by logging trucks and I see that it fits - NF road for public use, their own road for their logging trucks.

 

If true, then technically the fee is not necessary to be on or drive along the road and only necessary when stepping off the road and onto Hancock land.

 

Can anyone verify this?

That was my understanding as well, but a good look at a property map may be needed to prove it.
Link to comment

 

A subtle but important point came up in discussion with a friend while we hunted caches up the North Fork Snoqualmie River just before the fee went into place.

 

The road used for public access there seems to be a NF road and we determined that likely is such because it provides access to National Forest land at the road end. Also according to Google Maps there is an isolated pieced of NF land that can only be accessed via the road. I had always wondered about that fact that there is a parallel road accessing the valley (Tolt Reservoir Road) and it is the one primarily used by logging trucks and I see that it fits - NF road for public use, their own road for their logging trucks.

 

If true, then technically the fee is not necessary to be on or drive along the road and only necessary when stepping off the road and onto Hancock land.

 

Can anyone verify this?

That was my understanding as well, but a good look at a property map may be needed to prove it.

 

I just called and left a message at the ranger station in North Bend, I'll report what I learn

Link to comment

On the other hand, the cache you're talking about was placed just days before the new fee and while I think that technically puts it within the grandfather clause the placement be considered in poor taste particularly because of the CO's reviewer status and the fact that they should be setting an example for all of us

Sort of. In reality that cache was placed a few years ago, it just gained a new listing. I don't see a problem with that, maybe because I also don't really see these as "commercial" caches in the same way I would see a cache in a store as commercial. Reasonable people could disagree, since finding the cache does require the finder to "purchase a product or service," to quote the guidelines. But putting aside the "permission for caches on private property" issue, I think it would be unfortunate to lose caches in this area (and I was bummed to see so many archived). I figure if one doesn't want to buy a permit, they can choose to ignore these caches.

 

The road used for public access there seems to be a NF road and we determined that likely is such because it provides access to National Forest land at the road end. Also according to Google Maps there is an isolated pieced of NF land that can only be accessed via the road. I had always wondered about that fact that there is a parallel road accessing the valley (Tolt Reservoir Road) and it is the one primarily used by logging trucks and I see that it fits - NF road for public use, their own road for their logging trucks.

 

If true, then technically the fee is not necessary to be on or drive along the road and only necessary when stepping off the road and onto Hancock land.

 

Can anyone verify this?

 

Yes. It's actually a county road, I believe, but yeah, it's open to the public to its end. It's identified as NF-5700 and North Fork County Road on various maps. That's the "24 mile dead end" (as signed at the beginning of the road), and leads back to National Forest land that is open to all. However, that road does pass through Hancock land that is not open without the permit. Moun10bike's Northwest Topos mapset shows the boundary clearly, and accurately from what I can tell. You're correct that leaving the public road while passing through Hancock land, without their permit, would be prohibited (trespassing/theft of services, theoretically). You also mentioned the "parallel" road. That's actually the Mainline Road in Hancock's parlance and on their maps, and it doesn't lead directly to the reservoir though if one cared to get arrested one could get there from the Mainline.

Edited by Lightning Jeff
Link to comment

On the other hand, the cache you're talking about was placed just days before the new fee and while I think that technically puts it within the grandfather clause the placement be considered in poor taste particularly because of the CO's reviewer status and the fact that they should be setting an example for all of us

Sort of. In reality that cache was placed a few years ago, it just gained a new listing. I don't see a problem with that, maybe because I also don't really see these as "commercial" caches in the same way I would see a cache in a store as commercial. Reasonable people could disagree, since finding the cache does require the finder to "purchase a product or service," to quote the guidelines. But putting aside the "permission for caches on private property" issue, I think it would be unfortunate to lose caches in this area (and I was bummed to see so many archived). I figure if one doesn't want to buy a permit, they can choose to ignore these caches.

Uh, I purposely was vague about the particulars of that cache because I was not trying to embarrass the reviewer. Thank you very little for providing the details.

 

In reality, a lot of those caches were archived because the owners did not want to pay the hefty fee necessary to maintain them, not because they suddenly were potentially violating another guideline. However, choosing to ignore the caches because of the fee is not really relevant to the question.

 

Besides your outing of the cache, I do appreciate the input. it is a vast improvement over the crickets chirping.

Link to comment

Sort of. In reality that cache was placed a few years ago, it just gained a new listing. I don't see a problem with that, maybe because I also don't really see these as "commercial" caches in the same way I would see a cache in a store as commercial. Reasonable people could disagree, since finding the cache does require the finder to "purchase a product or service," to quote the guidelines. But putting aside the "permission for caches on private property" issue, I think it would be unfortunate to lose caches in this area (and I was bummed to see so many archived). I figure if one doesn't want to buy a permit, they can choose to ignore these caches. [/font]

I thought that there used to be another cache there but of course you can't look those up. I'm confused though, why then archive the original and relist it? Also, the cache that is there now was a terracache and was converted, so not the original cache even if in or near the original geocache location.

 

Even so, the intent was clearly to 'get in' before the fee went into place after which caches will not be allowed. I don't think it's the commercial clause, but a pay for entry clause. Though I just went looking for this clause and can't find it so maybe it does fall under the commercial clause. But in either case, it's not just about advertising, it's about profit: we shouldn't have to pay a private business to geocache.

 

Yes. It's actually a county road, I believe, but yeah, it's open to the public to its end. It's identified as NF-5700 and North Fork County Road on various maps. That's the "24 mile dead end" (as signed at the beginning of the road), and leads back to National Forest land that is open to all. However, that road does pass through Hancock land that is not open without the permit. Moun10bike's Northwest Topos mapset shows the boundary clearly, and accurately from what I can tell. You're correct that leaving the public road while passing through Hancock land, without their permit, would be prohibited (trespassing/theft of services, theoretically). You also mentioned the "parallel" road. That's actually the Mainline Road in Hancock's parlance and on their maps, and it doesn't lead directly to the reservoir though if one cared to get arrested one could get there from the Mainline.

Great info, thanks. I still want to hear it from the PTB so will follow up with a call to the ranger station; telling the enforcement officer 'I heard it was ok by a guy in an online forum' won't fly very far :lol:

 

In reality, a lot of those caches were archived because the owners did not want to pay the hefty fee necessary to maintain them, not because they suddenly were potentially violating another guideline. However, choosing to ignore the caches because of the fee is not really relevant to the question.

Maybe some of that and my guess is that they were archived because they didn't want them hanging out there teasing cachers that won't pay the price to grab them; or alternately as a way to protest as well as not encourage reward aka profit to the company that put this fee into place. Truthfully, maintenance on these caches are rarely if ever done, many are often maintained by finders or the owners archive them. Also, Ruck was out in the area racking up finds before the big day and was kind enough to email the COs ahead of time to see if they would like their caches retrieved, and most choose to do just that and then archived them.

Link to comment

Uh, I purposely was vague about the particulars of that cache because I was not trying to embarrass the reviewer. Thank you very little for providing the details.

 

Yeah, because it's a big state secret, isn't it? And here I thought I was defending that listing. blink.gif

No, it's not a secret, but surely you can understand why some discretion would be desirable, especially when your specificity adds nothing to your argument.

Link to comment

Uh, I purposely was vague about the particulars of that cache because I was not trying to embarrass the reviewer. Thank you very little for providing the details.

 

Yeah, because it's a big state secret, isn't it? And here I thought I was defending that listing. blink.gif

No, it's not a secret, but surely you can understand why some discretion would be desirable, especially when your specificity adds nothing to your argument.

Ok maybe I am having a stupid day, but I don't get it. The answer is no, I don't understand why some discretion is desireable, or why the CO/Reviewer has any reason to feel embarrassed.

 

There is a TC that was crosslisted, maybe this is what you feel they should be embarrassed about? It happens to be in an area where there is an access fee. The land owners are aware of our hobby and know that there are caches on their land.

Based on those last two sentences, how is this different then the caches in Rainier or at St Helens, or any other area you pay to access the land? Or if you feel that it is an unfair access issue, how is it much different then when a group of us went out and placed a cache at the end of the Middle Fork two days before they closed the last 8 miles to cars, knowing that the closure was going to happen?

 

I guess I don't get what the big stink is all about. I really don't like the fee, won't pay it, and therefore will stop using their land. As far as I am concerned they are now on my list of bad landowners.

Link to comment

No, it's not a secret, but surely you can understand why some discretion would be desirable, especially when your specificity adds nothing to your argument.

I didn't know there was an "argument." huh.gif I would guess that if the cache owner was really all that sensitive about the issue, that person might have chosen not to list the cache??

 

Great info, thanks. I still want to hear it from the PTB so will follow up with a call to the ranger station; telling the enforcement officer 'I heard it was ok by a guy in an online forum' won't fly very far :lol:

Aw, trust me! ph34r.gif

 

As I see it, there are still a few caches that are on National Forest land that are accessible by the public North Fork Road aka NF-5700, though they require a long, bumpy drive and in some cases more:

On the other hand, there are a number of caches on Hancock land - now ostensibly accessible only with a permit:

One cache, STUMPHI, has coordinates that place it within the public road right of way (according to King County iMAP). As far as I can tell, grabbing that cache would not require a Hancock permit, at least if the coordinates are accurate.

Edited by Lightning Jeff
Link to comment

Interesting Jeff, I had a conversation with Landrover about Loch Katrine Monster, and although it is outside of the Hancock area, the question was raised it you had to walk through the edge of Hancock to get there, LR indicated that there were several roads from the FS road into the area but thought that there wasn't a route that didn't make you enter Hancock.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...