Stateland

[OutHouse]

All I can say as have others is read the easement carefully. If it is only for the grantee that excludes everyone else. County auditor is a good place to start but you will need the filing number. If you have the parcel number that you want to cross you could have a title company give you all easements or records affecting the parcel. You may want to ask them for any and all plat maps that have been filed with the county. These plat maps can also contain and/or create easements designated thereon. If you see an easement analyze the language carefully and sometimes there will be further language affecting the easement in the fine print on the right side of the plat map. Be wary of "for ingress and egress" as that may not include the public. The most clear language I have seen is "public access easement".

Nothing I have run into says the easement is for public access specifically.  However, I have found one county easement to public land "for all road purposes" that is posted and closed.  Most of the language says "the easements are conveyed for the purposes of reconstruction, use, and maintenance of said existing roads for the purpose of providing access to and from lands now owned or hereafter acquired by the parties hereto."  The parties being the state of Washington and a timber company.  These easements are also described as permanent, divisible, and non-exclusive".  I concede that the STATE can limit who uses their easement, and how it is used, but if the state decides that the public can use it, say for walk in access to state land, I don't see how the timber co. can legally object.  After all, the shoe is already on the other foot, and timber companies are selling access on these same roads to their permit holders, who then can drive through or to state land on these  roads.  Why doesn't the state enjoy the same rights?  The official line I've gotten from the DNR so far is that it is a "grey area".

I take it that you are referring to an easement deed and not an easement created by plat map? If that is the case then the state has an easement but like you say it might be their terms as to who gets to use it. Also, the state may not be able to widen the scope of use to include the public. What happens in these situations is that if the state said everyone can use our easement then the timber company files suit for overburdening the easement beyond the easement deed's plain terms. DNR is saying this is a gray area because it really is. When an easements terms are ambiguous, a court can look to the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the intent of the easement grant was to include the public. That can be difficult because with old easements the people who negotiated are often dead and there aren't witnesses.

What you are describing (if on an easement deed) could amount to a common law dedication to the state for that easement. If that occurred, it is possible it is already a county road but unlikely due to it being gated. Just based off of what we know now, it appears the county has an easement to access other lands but no one else. After hearing this stuff over the years I would never give any timber company money to use their land. I have heard all sorts of stories regarding them getting bull tags etc. and giving them to family. Its like the farmers here in central WA. I know several who like to hunt but never ever buy a tag because they get so many salvage tags some for any animal.

[Goshawk]

I know that in Lewis County there are several choice slices of DNR land that are indeed land locked and unassailable to the public. In fact, one buddy in DNR told me they have to ask permission and meet a timber land owner / employee to be let past a gate for timber grading.

Our DNR really screwed the public out of some very good lands here in Western Washington.

[spin05]

alot of you may be too young to remember the guys who where taking helicoptors to NF lands in the middle of the cedar river watershed.  There were some sizable chunks land locked in there with great hunting due to the watershed has never been open to the public to hunt.  The ended up doing a land swap with the NF with lands outside the watershed to put a stop to it.

[Knocker of rocks]

In fact, one buddy in DNR told me they have to ask permission and meet a timber land owner / employee to be let past a gate for timber grading.

You'd think they would have keys and an easement

[fireweed]

Are we making progress?  I don't know if this is just a coincidence or the influence of folk like us digging into the issue, but it appears Weyco land tied up with state land just got enrolled in feel free to hunt.  Anyone have details about this land?  How was it managed beforehand?

From WDFW bi-weekly wildlife report:
"Private Lands Access Agreement: Wildlife Conflict Specialist/Private Lands Biologist Jacobsen met with representatives from Weyerhaeuser Company to enroll 6,638 acres of land in Wahkiakum County in WDFW’s Feel Free to Hunt access program. The majority of this land is
adjacent to land owned by Washington state, and will be an invaluable addition of land open to public hunting."

[Goshawk]

In fact, one buddy in DNR told me they have to ask permission and meet a timber land owner / employee to be let past a gate for timber grading.

You'd think they would have keys and an easement

Yes you would, but it happens.  I'm guessing it's something DNR really does not care about, or it's on purpose so they can argue their access to a land locked area is so bad they need to sell it off to a boarding land owner. Lewis County is spotted with land locked areas, or areas that used to be public access DNR that got swapped out with lands in the high cascades or coastlines.  Either way, the local hunting / fishing / hiking population looses out again.

[idaho guy]

It makes me sad that this has become such a pay-to-win sport. I just got into it, but my grandpa hunted most of his life and was very poor when he did so, but was able to harvest deer and elk reliably. Now I feel like this is on its way to being a sport for the rich.

   

It doesn’t have to be a rich mans game. You might have to work harder but feel fortunate you live in a western state with quite a bit of public land you will find success if you keep at it and keep exploring new areas. If you lived in Texas my understanding is you want to hunt you will pay someone.  I hate to see it becoming a big money sport too but there is still tons of opportunities for the average joe hunters. Sounds like you’re just getting into it don’t get discouraged and just enjoy the process. Half the fun is learning new places and methods to hunt. I hunted hogs in Texas and the reason their harvest rates are huge is they raise them like cattle in lots of places high fence stuff. Back to the topic good job fireweed interested to see where this could go! I would second reaching out to Randy newberg

[fireweed]

I know that in Lewis County there are several choice slices of DNR land that are indeed land locked and unassailable to the public. In fact, one buddy in DNR told me they have to ask permission and meet a timber land owner / employee to be let past a gate for timber grading.

Our DNR really screwed the public out of some very good lands here in Western Washington.

Lewis County is now a great place to do online research into easements. All of their records are online and you can use the advanced search tab to look up specific section/township/range.  Dig into it to see what those DNR parcels have for access.
https://quickdocs.lewiscountywa.gov/recorder/eagleweb/docSearch.jsp

[fireweed]

So more digging leads to more information.  Right now the timber companies are claiming that all their easements with the DNR for all time were only for land management and administrative purposes.  That just ain't so.  In fact, the OPPOSITE is true.  The easements started off MORE restricted then became wide open, before switching back to the restricted language.  This was a deliberate change.

This happened in mid-1967.  Before that date (at least for Weyco) most easements had a purpose for "land management and administrative use"; for a decade after mid-1967 the easements purpose was for access "to and from" lands of the parties. There is no way that this wasn't intentionally done to open up the roads to more potential uses.  Side by side, nearly every other word of the easements is the same. Proof positive that these roads were intentionally open to all "to and from" uses.

Unfortunately, if you run into a pre-1967 easement, chances are that it is more restrictive than a post-1967 easement. 

[fjp971]

Are we making progress?  I don't know if this is just a coincidence or the influence of folk like us digging into the issue, but it appears Weyco land tied up with state land just got enrolled in feel free to hunt.  Anyone have details about this land?  How was it managed beforehand?

From WDFW bi-weekly wildlife report:
"Private Lands Access Agreement: Wildlife Conflict Specialist/Private Lands Biologist Jacobsen met with representatives from Weyerhaeuser Company to enroll 6,638 acres of land in Wahkiakum County in WDFW’s Feel Free to Hunt access program. The majority of this land is
adjacent to land owned by Washington state, and will be an invaluable addition of land open to public hunting."

I just went on the OnX app and clicked on most of the parcels in Wahkiakum county adjacent to the WA State land and I don't see anything labeled as Weyerhaueuser.  Am I missing something?  Most of them are showing the names of other timber holdings or some insurance companies.  This thread is really interesting.  I happened to listen to the MeatEater podcast talking about this issue recently also.

[fireweed]

So more digging leads to more information.  Right now the timber companies are claiming that all their easements with the DNR for all time were only for land management and administrative purposes.  That just ain't so.  In fact, the OPPOSITE is true.  The easements started off MORE restricted then became wide open, before switching back to the restricted language.  This was a deliberate change.

This happened in mid-1967.  Before that date (at least for Weyco) most easements had a purpose for "land management and administrative use"; for a decade after mid-1967 the easements purpose was for access "to and from" lands of the parties. There is no way that this wasn't intentionally done to open up the roads to more potential uses.  Side by side, nearly every other word of the easements is the same. Proof positive that these roads were intentionally open to all "to and from" uses.

Unfortunately, if you run into a pre-1967 easement, chances are that it is more restrictive than a post-1967 easement.

To update--what is so special about 1967.  That is the year the timber industry got the legislature to pass proposed modifications to the STATE CONSTITUTION to grant the timber and open space tax shifts!  Citizens voted on it in 1968.  After more digging it appears several large timber companies--Weyerhaeuser, Burlington Norther/Northern Pacific; International Paper/Long Bell; St Regis Paper--all changed the wording of their DNR easements at about the same time, just as citizens were getting ready to vote on this huge tax shift that hugely benefited the timber industry.  They obviously wanted to show that they were providing public access and a public benefit and thus deserved the vote and support for the new tax law.  Most companies kept this broad wording of their easements in place for about a decade, and as the tax law became accepted (less likely to be reversed) they gradually returned to the old, restricted easement language. 

This is proof positive that these roads were intended to be accessible to the public, and that the tax law was rewarding timber companies for public recreation on their land.

[Buckhunter24]

Where is it written that public use is required for designated forest tax break?

Open space designation is, but I cannot see any indication that designated forest is.

[The Marquis]

Are we making progress?  I don't know if this is just a coincidence or the influence of folk like us digging into the issue, but it appears Weyco land tied up with state land just got enrolled in feel free to hunt.  Anyone have details about this land?  How was it managed beforehand?

From WDFW bi-weekly wildlife report:
"Private Lands Access Agreement: Wildlife Conflict Specialist/Private Lands Biologist Jacobsen met with representatives from Weyerhaeuser Company to enroll 6,638 acres of land in Wahkiakum County in WDFW’s Feel Free to Hunt access program. The majority of this land is
adjacent to land owned by Washington state, and will be an invaluable addition of land open to public hunting."

I just went on the OnX app and clicked on most of the parcels in Wahkiakum county adjacent to the WA State land and I don't see anything labeled as Weyerhaueuser.  Am I missing something?  Most of them are showing the names of other timber holdings or some insurance companies.  This thread is really interesting.  I happened to listen to the MeatEater podcast talking about this issue recently also.

Weyerhaueueueueueser bought Longview Fiber a few years ago.  Longview Timberlands are owned by them.  That's what you can look for.  There is a big parcel surrounded entirely by state land that has a notable easement that's frequently used and a few parcels toward the river.  It seems like it might be all lands in that county owned by them save a couple tiny parcels.

[Buckhunter24]

A lot of the reits have countless investor groups. So weyerhauser land may show up as some random sounding llc on the county parcel layer

[fireweed]

UGH!
Just when you think we are making progress on access the government Chicken's out because they are afraid of being sued.

Found an "all road uses" easement to several hundred acres of public land the is required by deed to be dedicated to public use, including specifically public river recreation.   The land is accessed via an easement through Weyerhaeuser of about 2 miles.  This Weyco property is leased out and the road is posted "no trespassing" by the lessee.   The agencies controlling the land won't ruffle Weyerhaeuser's feathers and ask for the signs to be removed/modified.  They are scared of being sued!   After all, the land is "technically" accessible to the public already...by floating the river!