Whitewater Forum: NF Snoqualmie Access

NF Snoqualmie Access

Printed From: ProfessorPaddle.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Whitewater Forum
Forum Discription: Open Discussion Forum. Whitewater related subjects only
URL: http://www.professorpaddle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11433
Printed Date: 19 Sep 2025 at 12:32pm

Topic: NF Snoqualmie Access

Posted By: meryl
Subject: NF Snoqualmie Access
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2011 at 8:28am

[Slightly expanded from my post in the older thread]

Starting in Jan Hancock Timber is going to require a $75 per person per year permit to walk onto the property around the NF Snoqualmie to access the river.

Hancock Timber got paid $22 million King County tax dollars in 2004 for the
development rights to this property. According to Larry Phillips, Chair of the
Metropolitan King County Council, part of the reason for that was so that "This
part of the Cascade foothills will remain accessible to everyone". (quote taken
from Hancock's own press release http://www.htrg.com/news_09_02_04.htm). Ron
Sims, who was King County Executive at the time said "Since the county will own
the development rights, it will get the benefit of preserving open space while
not having the expense of maintaining the land."

Charging $75 to walk onto the property is not a reasonable definition of
"accessible". It is reasonable for them to charge a maintenance fee to people
driving on the road, but not to pedestrians. I have emailed Larry Phillips
(larry.phillips@...) and also my KC council rep to complain about
this, and it'd be nice if some other people did too.

Replies:

Posted By: mokelumnekid
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2011 at 10:07am

Thanks Meryl, my man, Larry Gossett just got an email from me, tho I'm guessing it will take more than a few pings to bring this to anyone's attention. Occupy Hancock!! (jest joking folks...heh, heh)

Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2011 at 2:41pm

Thanks Merly for bringing this up. Very interesting, and it makes this new $75 fee pretty unreasonable. I will be complaining to my King County rep and I hope others do too.

Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2011 at 2:45pm

Heres the link to a map of the 9 KC districts. Find out who your rep is and contact them!

http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/councilmembers.aspx - http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/councilmembers.aspx

Posted By: fiddleyak
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2011 at 2:54pm

Here's the letter I just sent:

Hi Mr. Phillips,

I live in King County District 4.

I'm a frequent user of the Snoqualmie Forest. I hike onto the property managed by Hancock to get to the North Fork of the Snoqualmie River.

There is a new user fee starting next year for the simple privilige of hiking onto this public land.

I understand that Hancock may have a right to charge for drive-on right. They do have to maintain the road, after all. But how can they have the right to charge me walk-on access? I'm not impacting their use of the land for logging in any way.

I would appreciate a response about how you feel about this new restriction. I think it is important to preserve the citizens' right of access to our public lands. I hope you will take a position against this new fee.

Thanks,

Posted By: huckin harms
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2011 at 6:51pm

right on Ben... I actually sent a comment to the Hancock Rec page protesting the charge. Your letter is spot on. I would send one in but being in Snohomish Cnt kinda leaves me on the outskirts of this. Hopefully enough response will generate some kinda change.

http://hancockrecreationnw.com/contact - http://hancockrecreationnw.com/contact

Make your voices heard!

-------------

Posted By: NOMADIC WORLD
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2011 at 10:39pm

Thanks for the heads up Meryl, Phillips knows where I stand on this now. Spread the word to your non boater friends. This concerns anyone that takes or thinks about taking a step outside.

-------------
In The Business of Doing Things.

Posted By: Butchv
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2011 at 3:17pm

I got a reply from my email... Here you go:

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the new Hancock access fee. Unfortunately, this land is not public land. It is private land. King County did buy the development rights, but all that does is secure that the land will not be built upon. It does not require or guarantee public access. King County had tried to garner public access rights when negotiating the deal, but Hancock ultimately did not agree to that. As a result, as a private property owner, Hancock has the rights to manage access to their lands however they deem appropriate.

I'm sorry that I do not have a better answer for you. Unfortunately, this is the challenging reality of trying to utilize private lands for recreation.

I hope this helps to clarify the situation. Please do not hesitate to contact us in the future.

Regards,

Christine Jensen
Policy Director | King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert
516 Third Ave, Room 1200 | Seattle, WA 98104
206.296.0308 | christine.jensen@kingcounty.gov

Posted By: huckin harms
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2011 at 4:30pm

darn... that doesn't sound good at all.

-------------

Posted By: Mr.Grinch
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2011 at 5:05pm

What also needs to be found out is wether or no they are still gettin money from the government. That was part of the deal, right? They got money from the taxpayers and the public had the ability to use the land freely (certain roads obviously needing a fee/key for a few reasons). So, if they are closing public use, will they also no longer receive money from the public?

Posted By: dave
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2011 at 6:58pm

Another possible way to get access, is to find out who manages Hancock and contact them to try and establish a relationship with them.

-------------
Nomad

Posted By: mokelumnekid
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2011 at 8:36pm

Excellent point Dave- how can we engage them in a positive way to consider win-win? Maybe it is futile? What is publicity worth? What added value do we bring outside the $75.?

Maybe you all can give me a read on this- is the fee simply there to prevent users, essentially saying, "go away?" Or is it a money-making thing? To a company that size the money is too small pickings for the handful that will pay it. I'm guessing it is a form of "fencing" to keep folks out. But if that is the case why not charge $200 as that would guarantee that no one would take the offer.

And while I understand the response by King Co., no doubt they could have a chat with the folks at Hancock...what bugged me was the throwing the hands in the air with no interest in advocating. Maybe that's just the reality of the situation.

What now?

Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2011 at 9:18pm

Meryl, Fiddleyak, MokelumneMan-
Appreciate the clarity brought forth by your posts. This is worse than I had previously thought. It is almost downright hostile.

Mr. Grinch- you raise an excellent point. That's quite a chunk of change and it leads me to wonder if they are still recieving tax dollars for this deal.

-------------
🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋

Posted By: meryl
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2011 at 11:08pm

I don't think they get any more actual money out of our pockets, what they get is a downzone that lowers their tax rate per acre considerably, since they cannot build on the property.

I have yet to get a response to my email. I mentioned to my rep that if public access hadn't been negotiated at the time it was a serious oversight. The reply from Lambert's office makes it sound like they thought about it but didn't try very hard.

Bottom line, it looks to me like there isn't anything they can legally do now since they f'd it up back then.

Print Page | Close Window