Green dot changes and access changes FYI

[HoofsandWings]

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
March 7, 2018
Contact: Ross Huffman, WDFW, 509-457-9313
Joe Smith, DNR, 509-925-8510
Southcentral "green dot" road management
public meeting scheduled March 22 in Selah
YAKIMA -- The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will host a public meeting on Thursday, March 22, in Selah about changes to "green dot" road management in southcentral Washington.
Both agencies will provide information and take public comments on updates and proposed changes at the meeting, which will run from 6 to 8 p.m. in the Senior Room of the Selah Civic Center, 216 S. 1st St., in Selah. 
The green dot road management system marks roads in Yakima and Kittitas counties that are open to public motorized vehicle use. Marked with a round green reflector on a white route marker, these roads provide access to camping, hunting, off-road vehicle riding and other recreational activities.
Proposed changes include the addition of green dot roads on the Quilomene and Whiskey Dick units of the L.T. Murray Wildlife Area, said Ross Huffman, WDFW southcentral region lands operations manager. Developing a green dot road system in the "green gate" area of the Quilomene Unit is an objective of the interagency Naneum-to-Columbia River Recreation Plan.
Updates include the loss of public access across private land adjacent to the Ahtanum State Forest, said Joe Smith, DNR southeast region forest operations manager.
Huffman and Smith note that road use across private property adjacent to the L.T. Murray Wildlife Area and Naneum Ridge State Forest could also be affected.
Road management on the Colockum, Wenas, and Oak Creek road management areas will also be discussed at the meeting.
Additional information about the green dot road system is available at https://wdfw.wa.gov/lands/wildlife_areas/green_dot/
 
Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW All Information mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at:  http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html

[Rainier10]

So are they closing more roads or opening more up?

Is this about a private land owner blocking access?

 

[HoofsandWings]

I just passed the email on. You will have to ask wdfw

[Calvin Rayborn]

More restrictions? Oh brother 

[Naches Sportsman]

So are they closing more roads or opening more up?

Is this about a private land owner blocking access?

 

Probably the latter regarding the Cowiche Unit.

[C-Money]

I play by the rules, and sure enjoy riding the green dots. Hope they don't shut it down.

[jdb]

I went to the meeting and they're closing down a huge block in 368

[Rainier10]

I went to the meeting and they're closing down a huge block in 368

what was the reasoning? Elk calving area?

[Oh Mah]

 

[jdb]

The green dot roads pass through parcels of private and they’ve decided they can’t do that w/o permission and none of the land owners are willing to grant permission. So essentially one entire drainage is now inaccessible to the publuc

[Oh Mah]

Do we know which drainage?

[jdb]

Do we know which drainage?

the south fork of the cowiche

[Oh Mah]

Thanks.

So another way,There has to be some other way in right?They can't have land locked public land by law right?

[Oh Mah]

If property was sold without easement on to public land then a suite should be filed against all the parties involved.Easement is needed so that these things don't happen and if purposely done the involved should be held liable. 

[Oh Mah]

Who on this site owns property and wasn't forced have an easement on their property?

[jdb]

There is a Jeep trail from above the ewe neck that drops in there but it is a hard core trail and would probably take a whole day just to make it around there

[Oh Mah]

   That's all it will take for a legal access.Less hunters in there because of this change more hunters in the others though.

[jdb]

Unless you have a Jeep specifically built for off road you won’t make it in there

[Oh Mah]

  I do.

[grundy53]

Thanks.

So another way,There has to be some other way in right?They can't have land locked public land by law right?

There is no law against having land locked public land. There are millions of acres of public land that are land locked in the western states.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Oh Mah]

Oh really?You say where and i'll show you litigation on it.Difficult doesn't count either,Any access makes it accessible.

[Oh Mah]

Just an fyi,I am not gonna go through all the laws on this as there are many but i will point out a few facts for you.Land owners have always and will always have the rights to get to their property.You agree right?

[Skyvalhunter]

Ok I am game, sure why not

[Oh Mah]

Well it is the law isn't it?To have access to your land.

[Stein]

No, you don't automatically have the right to access your land.  You could buy a piece of land surrounded by other private land and have no access.  That is why there are access easements, it isn't automatic and only in place if the easement exists.

The west is full of landlocked public land that you can't get to without a jetpack, parachute or helicopter.

[Oh Mah]

I read that article also,It said that access was made very difficult.There are laws in place and have been for several years that give property owners the very easements you are talking about.Please point to 1 case where a person bought land that they cannot access.

[Stein]

I read that article also,It said that access was made very difficult.There are laws in place and have been for several years that give property owners the very easements you are talking about.Please point to 1 case where a person bought land that they cannot access.

Murphy v. Burch (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 1434.

From another source:

"An easement by necessity arises by operation of law only if two strict conditions are met: (1) there is a strict necessity for the right-of-way such as owning a landlocked parcel with no access to a public right of way; and (2) at one time, the landlocked parcel and the parcel over which the right-of-way is sought, were owned by the same person(s). The exception to this rule is where the landlocked parcel was patent deeded by the federal government to the current owner or to his or her predecessor in the chain of title."

So, if you wanted to access a piece of landlocked public ground, you would need to go to court to assert the easement of necessity and pay all the costs to get that through - assuming you could convince the judge.  The part about the landlocked land and piece you want to cross needing to once be owned by the same landowner seems to exclude just about all public land.  I don't see anywhere where a guy can simply trespass and be anything other than a trespasser.

[SuperX]

you have rights to access your privately owned land, if there is no other right of way (and a river is considered a right of way in my personal experience), but you have no rights to access public land as you don't own it so there is no way to show a compelling need.  EDIT: Stein nailed it

[Oh Mah]

This case proves my point doesn't it?Cal. law implied easement.

"WHILE THE GRANTOR MIGHT NOT EXPRESSLY GRANT DEED OR RESERVE RIGHTS OF ACCESS,SUCH RIGHTS WILL BE LEGISLATIVELY OR JUDICIALLY IMPLIED.

She lost the case as so many do with the Supreme court,She did not bring the right argument.She won at first because it is the law as i stated.

Public land is owned by the public same way private land is,We pay the taxes for the land no different than a private party does.The Gov. can impose rules for the use on the public land but cannot stop the public from accessing it.Yes you are right on the rest that you said. Public land has many owners,in each state,In WA. you and i own the public land along with all other citizens of this state.

[Oh Mah]

After reading through all of it and the next appeal as well,I will admit that the courts see it differently at least in California but only because the land in question was purchased by the Fed.Had it been purchased by a private party what i said stands. 

Tip: Don't buy land from the gov. without easement.

Fact: If it's purchased by a private party the law is simple,Easement is or will be implied.

[Stein]

After reading through all of it and the next appeal as well,I will admit that the courts see it differently at least in California but only because the land in question was purchased by the Fed.Had it been purchased by a private party what i said stands. 

Tip: Don't buy land from the gov. without easement.

Fact: If it's purchased by a private party the law is simple,Easement is or will be implied.

Provided the piece you own and the piece you want an easement on were owned by the same landowner at one time.  Unfortunately, that doesn't help with public land access.

[Oh Mah]

If you buy land from someone that already has access to said land (not fed.) then as i said law states that it implies easement and will be given.Whether said or not.The only reason that she lost is because it was purchased from the fed. if it hadn't been the first case would have been the last.

[grundy53]

Oh really?You say where and i'll show you litigation on it.Difficult doesn't count either,Any access makes it accessible.

http://westernpriorities.org/2013/11/25/new-report-landlocked-measuring-public-land-access-in-the-west/

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Oh Mah]

Thanks Grundy,This is a serious problem.Litigation on each of these needs to be (most likely is) done.It is clear that the public has an interest and it is a necessity to be able to access all public land.All these land transactions just like the tree farms had agreements between buyer seller tree farms negotiated price for access to public.

I guess if (that's a huge if since I've already shown laws that say i'm right)there's no written law as i thought then there dam sure should be,If all land owners had to give same easement as everyone else this would not be a problem,IT'S JUST LIKE THE BORDER WALL ISSUE.If there was an easement on our side of the border our country could be safer and the wall cheaper. 

[fastdam]

John, is this concerning the road in the south fork that has already been blocked for ten years?

[BoogerTee]

Sooooo, is it confirmed that the south fork of the Cowiche  will be closed this coming season?  That's Cowiche Mill Rd?  Just tryin to figure it out. Been huntin there for years.  How about access to Reynolds creek?

[fastdam]

A gate went up today at the end of the county road. At the 7 mile marker. Also they are putting in a few more gates in nasty creek and jackals rd.