collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: Landlocked State Land  (Read 2574 times)

Offline fireweed

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Toutle, Wa
Landlocked State Land
« on: August 21, 2019, 09:29:08 AM »
OnX and TRCP just released the report on landlocked state lands.  According to report, WA has 316,000 acres of totally inaccessible (landlocked) state land.  A previous report found that Washington had 121,000 acres of landlocked Federal land. 

The reports did not look into easements going to those landlocked lands.  Many easements written between 1967 and 1980 have wording that says the purpose of the easement is for "access to and from state lands" so , with a little investigation and a push from outdoor folks like us, these lands may not be landlocked to the public after all. 

https://www.onxmaps.com/pdf/PublicLands_Report_2019.pdf

Offline buckfvr

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Posts: 4515
  • Location: UNGULATE FREE ZONE UNIT 121
Re: Landlocked State Land
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2019, 11:39:59 AM »
Access to and from state lands by state employees on official business.......I know of several such places and have talked to DNR friends about it and they cant even slip in to hunt......

I also know of a few such places with open easements to timber company lands and I believe if the land owner had it to do over again, he wouldnt.

Offline fireweed

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Toutle, Wa
Re: Landlocked State Land
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2019, 12:25:40 PM »
Access to and from state lands by state employees on official business.......I know of several such places and have talked to DNR friends about it and they cant even slip in to hunt......

I also know of a few such places with open easements to timber company lands and I believe if the land owner had it to do over again, he wouldnt.

I have found two common languages in easements to DNR land
1)Land management and administrative purposes
2) Access to and from (with NO restrictions on use)  also sometimes called ingress and egress

#2 above is the one that could allow the public access.  Currently the timber companies are arguing that both of these are for land management and administrative only, but that is clearly NOT what they say nor how they were used for forty years.  In fact, the easements became more broad.  Before 1967 they were commonly limited to land management and administration, then the wording changed to simple "access to and from state lands" for over a decade, before reverting back to restricted language.

Offline buckfvr

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2010
  • Posts: 4515
  • Location: UNGULATE FREE ZONE UNIT 121
Re: Landlocked State Land
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2019, 12:47:11 PM »
I sure hope someone with suitable knowledge and maybe some stroke is keeping up on this and at least not allowing it to get worse.  Ive always been unsatisfied with how this plays out.  There are plenty of guys up here who use such lands as their own private hunting grounds, allowing no one in except friends and family.

Offline fireweed

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 1307
  • Location: Toutle, Wa
Re: Landlocked State Land
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2019, 08:55:49 AM »
Here's the kicker---

Remember, before 1967 the easements are restricted to land management and administration.  After 1967 they use broad, open language for 10 years or so.

Why?

Pretty easy to discover the answer.
In the middle of 1967 the state legislature passed laws that benefited recreation on timberland, including the "recreational immunity law" and the "current use tax" law (that still needed a vote of the people). 

Clearly, the open easement language was part of a strategy to get the public to vote for the current use law, or part of a "deal" to reward the legislature for passing recreational immunity, or both.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Shout out to bad-ss outdoor gear! by buglebuster
[Today at 11:08:18 PM]


Real world feedback needed: Rangefinder Binos by teanawayslayer
[Today at 10:25:19 PM]


One of my Wowzhers by deer_hnter
[Today at 09:48:58 PM]


What are you cooking? by JDHasty
[Today at 08:25:09 PM]


Illinois, No Doubter by Birdguy
[Today at 07:14:46 PM]


How to change email? by boneaddict
[Today at 07:11:41 PM]


Late Alta Muzzy by Schmalzfam
[Today at 05:10:16 PM]


Canning Wild Game by Whitpirate
[Today at 04:24:26 PM]


Big old and heavy by Pathfinder101
[Today at 02:32:30 PM]


Pepper Jack tillimook by Fidelk
[Today at 02:30:19 PM]


Thanksgiving duck hunt by metlhead
[Today at 12:34:23 PM]


What boots? by fishngamereaper
[Today at 10:46:03 AM]


One-Day Approval!!! by pianoman9701
[Today at 10:34:17 AM]


Wowzers by shotguunar
[Today at 10:18:25 AM]


CWD test results 🤤🤫 by baldopepper
[Today at 09:50:23 AM]


High n Dry gear by GWP
[Today at 09:13:20 AM]


Hunting with a suppressor - dumb idea? by b23
[Today at 09:01:46 AM]


Idaho/Montana elk/deer lodges by Hiker82
[Today at 08:49:34 AM]


November 26,02025 Hunt by Delta Duckman
[Today at 07:13:29 AM]


GMU 111 antlered moose advice request by teanawayslayer
[Yesterday at 10:20:12 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal