Not sure if I am in the majority here but I will say again that based upon my understanding of the bought and paid for easement the citizens of the State deserve more out of this than simply regaining the access its easement entitles them.

Did WDFW pay for a specific easement in perpetuity? Yes.

Did that easement require specific site improvements (access road with crushed rock surfacing, etc)? Yes.

Were the citizens of the State denied their legal access rights for years by the owner? Yes.

Did the owner deny that access knowingly and for his own benefit? Yes.

Did the owner destroy the improvements for which he was paid by WDFW as part of the easement? Yes.

It has been documented here that the amount paid for that easement and improvements was $40K in the early 70s worth approximately $230K in today's dollars.

I agree that the primary focus should be on reaffirming the easement and making the site accessible. That should include replacement improvements including (but not limited to) road, parking lot, and surfacing.

It should also include damages for the "stolen" access over an extended time especially given the value of access during the Cowlitz haydays.

I simply do not understand the purported "sense" in not seeking at least actual damages for the "stolen" access.

I also firmly believe that this case is ripe for punitive damages given the egregious nature of the owner's actions over an extended period of time and for his own financial benefit.

For those of you who suggest simply reopening the site is adequate would your position be the same if this had been your personal paid for easement that had been trampled upon for years? Maybe an only easement to your personal recreational property with no other access?

If you can answer "yes" to that scenario then we simply have far different perspectives on this issue and apparently life in general.