This goes back a long time. Back in the 1970's the WDFW was granted an easment for the purpose of fishing. The owner of the pit has repeatedly blocked access to fishermen by locking a gate or posting the property. The site is just downstream of the I-5 bridge near the Vader Ryderwood exit, mile mark 59 on I-5. This is not the boat launch almost under the bridge, it is the legal access at the Wallace gravel pit.

See old thread below.

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...ff_gives_o.html

I had gone down there to test the waters back in this time period, 2002-2003, one to see if I could catch anything, and two, to make sure that a paid for easment was accessible. Got in one time, and another time the gate was locked.

Anyway, last week I received a call from the assistant attorney general's office, specifically Jim Schwartz, asking about my experience down there. Jim has asked that anyone who has fished down there, or has tried to fish down there give him a call 360-586-4034. He would like to hear from you on your experiences.

Thanks

P.S. Bob Reid, aka Cowlitzfisherman, if you are still out there, sorry for being a dick on this issue when I first saw it. My apologies. Access to rivers is very important, so thanks for your previous efforts.

Actually, the easement site still exists, right in the middle of their pit. The folks at the pit expanded the pit and effectively eliminated the easement. It wasn't due to flooding. Aerial photos overlayed with the easement show that. There was gravel bar access back when I went down there in 2003 or 2004. Not sure exactly when I went down there.

If they knowingly destroyed the easement, make a new one. If they wish to have the easement eliminated, pay for it so the WDFW can put that money into another easement.

Andy I agree with what you saw back then. I too found the gate locked at times as well.
We hooked fish there,just had to get a little jiggy with it.....Os

I'm sure the Wallace family has a lot of good people in it, never said anything to besmirch their name. We have a few gravel pits over here in GH County owned by good families. I bank most of them.

I can also understand that the Wallace family is concerned about the safety and security of their crews, as well as anyone else who should enter onto the property. Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt or killed, but if there is an access easement, that contract needs to be honored. If there needs to be an end to the contract, then so be it, but there needs to be some sort of settlement. My guess is that this information gathering process is part of that settlement.

Osprey, jigs don't work.

I tried to go in there 3 or 4 times years ago. Locked gate each time.

The Wallaces may be good people, and they may have their reasons, but frankly that's irrelevant. They have locked the public out of a public place bought and paid for with public funds. Now if the Wallaces want to refund the $30,000 with 40 years of accrued interest and pay a penalty for theft of public property, then hey, no problem.

Sg

The attorney general would like to hear from any of you that had access problems in the past........I will bump up Bobs post from G F

Its always interesting hearing everyone's opinions n understanding of facts. The easement started at the gate n went westerly across the property, ending at a patch of nice fir trees on the river bank. I've been wondering for along time what happened to the trees? Just where this easement got washed out has me baffled. One only needs to look at old D n R aerials n Google Earth 1990 n present for the changes. Sometimes the crappiest spots make for some of the best fishing opportunities. As far as all high bank, no gravel bars, logs,snags n all the fish go up the other side! 2MANY it has me to believe you don't want any company or your getting all your understandings from someone else. Why in the H... would we want too give up any public access we have even if it's "CRAPPY" Thanks for somebody's attempt to save the banks on the lower right away, concrete slabs n rip rap has been placed over the years. I'm glad WDFW is finally getting off there ASS n addressing this. My memories n opinions come from driving in to use property in the 70's. Than watching access being taken away over the years. This be Tony Jones n I'm sticking too my facts.

If this actually ends up in court (or settlement is reached out of court) and the owners lose I hope that WDFW/AG additionally recoup the value of lost public usage over the entire period of time this has been occurring. If not, what is the deterrence?

You know, it's kind of like a senior discount. Unless you ask for it you'll never get it.

I resemble that remark!!

http://www.gamefishin.com/community/download/file.php?id=30776

This is the complaint filed on 6 Feb 2014

This should be relatively simple to clear up if there really is a recorded easement. The AGs need to just file suit and get it over with.

Click on the shortcut and look on the bottom of the page, It will ask you if you want to open or save.........look to the right and click open.........post here if you have any issues opening to read...Chuck

Good for them. Looks like it will get taken care of.

Hmmm, wonder who is "LMAO" now?

I read the entire Complaint and found under the requested relief the following at para 6.1:

"Plaintiff be awarded damages in an amount to be proven at trial for the loss of the easement road from 1980 through present."

Glad WDFW is going to recoup for the loss of public access during that extended period. Just how pricey will the owners' actions end up being?

In my opinion, I would suspect that the State settles this case with the Wallace's providing a new access road.

I entirely understand the need for the Wallace's to protect their equipment and crew, as well as protecting themselves from liability to misuse of the easement by others, but if they knowingly ignore an easement granted to another party and destroy it, they become liable for damages. While they owned the underlying land, the easement was property of the WDFW.

I hope that all that happens is that they build an additional access route, and the matter is considered closed.

Anyway, all of the documentation presented shows an intent to grant an easement, and then someone destroyed it. It will either be settled in court, or out of court, but it looks like that will happen relatively soon.

Had the destruction been inadvertent or immediately followed by established of new access/parking I would concur. However, it would seem that the owners intentionally destroyed the access road, did not immediately provide another means of access and, in fact, after years of preventing legal access (there was an Easement properly recorded with the County) a simple remedy of replacing the destroyed road and parking would not seem sufficient.

Doesn't the lost opportunity have a value?

And where is the dis-incentive for others?

No, got to be more than "O'K, you caught me. I'll fix it now."

In a perfect world, yes Larry, that would be the case. We live in Washington though, remember?

Also, I wouldn't be very happy if they placed the easement road parking lot at the gate and everybody had to walk in. That wasn't the intial intent of the easement. The original intent was that there be a road and a parking area near the river.

Anyway, it would just be good to have the easement back in use.

Thats a good one 2MANY!!! I talked with workers cleaning crapper out about same issues. The reply was that Eastenders where stopping by and taking the rolls faster than they could leave them. LMAO

We agree that having access to the easement and improvements which we paid for would be good.

Improvement in Washington would include reasonable compensation to the injured (compensatory damages) and in such an egregious situation the imposition of punitive damages to ensure this individual and others don't play this game in the future.

At least that would make it better in my third generation Washingtonian eyes.

Given that there have been an average of over 750,000 fishing licenses sold in the state of WA every year since 1971....
and let's say 33% of these license holders would have used this access 10 times/year, and a reasonable fee for use of $5.00...... That would be 250,000 people that need to be paid $ 50.00 .......... $ 10,250,000 times 43 years...... let's see.....carry the one.... that would be a TOTAL AMOUNT OWED TO WDFW of ...... $ 530,750,000.00 (before interest and late fees). That sounds reasonable, right? We take cash, cashier's check, or PayPal..... How would you like to pay for that today?

I would agree with 2Many on that Audball. Just get the access reopened, figure it out, and move on.

Has anyone considered the value of the rock that Wallaces removed over the years in the process while they removed the access? Sure legally they probably own the land under the access. BUT willfully removing & overlooking the access to add $$ to their pockets is another thing.

The State only bought the easement, not the rock. Don't get greedy. The State shouldn't either, especially when re-routing the easement is so easy.

Dogfish you keep talking sense. I don't think that majority here knows how to react to that.

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.

I have my own easement issues for beach rights on Whidbey Island. I have had the door slammed in my face when I tried to discuss it with the owner. Plantings have been installed that prevent the full, safe use of said easement. I possibly could sue but I understand it is an expensive process. Isn't the end game, just to restore the easement and allow its use as intended? The rest of that fight will just delay the game. If there was a financial settlement where do you think that money would go anyway?

If sportsmen and the state just go for reopening access and no punitive measures, what happens in the future on this site, just close it to the public for another twenty years because nothing is going to happen to them anyway. What will happen to other access's? I'm not trying to pick on the property owners here but feel strongly that something should be returned to the state and sportsmen for their patience in this matter.

You have an issue that apparently affects to some degree your easement but does not totally eliminate your use. Tough call. Maybe a letter from your attorney might get their attention and avoid a possible law suit. Clearly your decision.

Is restoring access to an existing easement the end game? No. It is clearly the No. 1 priority followed by actual damages and then possible punitive damages for the reasons I have already set forth.

Where would any money go? Well, that has also been discussed with ideas ranging from a fund to maintain the site and/or others on the Cowlitz, upgraded services at this location and fishing pond(s) at this site to cite a few. The Court could stipulate how any monetary damages might be utilized.

Solve it, move on. I am being realistic.

There is a difference between resolving an easement issue and causing undue financial harm.

I, too, am as much a realist as anyone and do not expect that "we" would receive everything "we" might realistically expect in the way of damages.

On the other hand, I will leave it to the Court to determine what might constitute reasonable damages versus "undue financial harm" based upon all of the facts to be presented. I hope and expect that the AG will pursue such reasonable damages insofar as damages were requested in the complaint.

Dogfish,

Suppose one of your bank customers stopped repaying his loan 30 years ago and has been giving you grief, but no money for 3 decades, and now because of legal action he agrees to resume making payments. Wouldn't you also want the 30 years of interest on that loan as well. Ah come on, be realistic, just accept the resumption of payments and move on. Right?

Sg

What payments were the Wallaces supposed to be making? Did the easement agreement state any penalties for lack of access (payments)? My loan documents state the penalties.

We would have foreclosed on somebody not making payments, but then again we take a much more proactive approach in managing our loans, our collateral, and what will potentially become our property, especially in this case, when compared to WDFW. We have worked through modifications as well, accepting skip payments and resumption of payments in lieu of foreclosing. We settle at times, and I'm guessing WDFW will as well.

The one thing that neither you nor Larry B are addressing is the fact that WDFW essentially ignored the issue for these 20+ years. It is similar to a neighbor encroaching onto your land, and you never saying a thing about it. Adverse possession. The Wallaces excavated the easement, and if that isnt an example of adverse possession tell me what it is.

Why did the WDFW take so long to finally do something about it? Bob Reid has been working on this for many years, to his credit. The WDFW has been ignoring this issue for many more. The state has the ability to wield a pretty damn big hammer at any time, but they haven't in this case until now. Want to tell me why?

The State bears some fault in this for not asserting its claim to the easement earlier and only now is it taking action. There is no need for the WDFW and AG's office to take 10+ years to collect all of this data. That is inexcusable. This effective "abandonment" of the easement through inaction on the part of the WDFW may likely be figured into some sort of settlement, or punitive damages.

The Wallaces will probably have to pay court costs, etc., but I doubt there will be a penalty ranging in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Absent a fine, they are still paying their own attorneys for their actions, which is essentially a stupidity tax. They certainly deserve this tax.

Just get the easement open so folks can fish there again. Move on. We can all argue the case here on the internet, but we aren't in court. You and I will have to wait and see who is right. I'll buy you a beer if their penalty is over $200,000, not including court costs. Deal?

I agree that the state is remiss in its long inaction. That really is inexcusable. However I don't see that as sufficient reason to let Wallace skate. Making crime pay simply makes committing crime a more attractive alternative. Along with re-opening the easement, I think Wallace should incur enough penalty to serve notice to other holders of easements that they ought not to steal back that which they have freely sold. And I'd buy you a beer anyway.

Deal.

What other world problems should we solve?

You make a good point Dogfish, but an easement does not fall under adverse possession laws. If that were the case, Bonneville would be SOL. The property owners in this case should, and more than likely, will be held liable. 200k won't cut it. I drink Coors Lite

You are correct in that I did not address the amount of time WDFW has apparently failed to take action. Why? Because I do not know what lesser actions WDFW may have taken over that period of time leading up to the legal action by the AG.

And not being a lawyer I can only opine that each time a member of the public attempted to utilize that easement (it is a public easement, right??) the public reaffirmed its belief that it held that easement and intended to use it - versus having abandoned it. Clearly the owner was on notice based upon its actions.

I also believe that in order to invoke a claim based upon the concept of adverse possession one also needs to take that claim to court which, to the best of the information provided herein, has not occurred.

By the way, I would opt for Dead Guy Ale since you (hopefully) will be buying.

That was a nice responce for sure 2MANY. If only this was the same reply ALL fisherman got while trying to access the river through the rock pit. I hope it can get resolved soon.

I would say that it's not undue harm. It's actually very overdue. WDFW's actions, while inappropriately delayed and disappointing, have become their norm and as such, should be expected.
This doesn't get the pit owner off the hook for the $530 million though..... and that's just a starting point for the negotiations....

Make you a bet. If it is $500 Million or more, I'll buy you a beer. Less that that, and you buy me a beer.

I even gave you $30 million in slop.

That's tempting...... but I'm guessing that the WDFW plays softball like the rest of our government does with rule breakers, and they get off with a slap on the wrist... and a 10 year time frame to re-open the easement, probably subsidized 90% by taxpayer money......

Originally Posted By: Dogfish

The one thing that neither you nor Larry B are addressing is the fact that WDFW essentially ignored the issue for these 20+ years.

I'll buy you a beer if their penalty is over $200,000, not including court costs. Deal?






This is interesting, #, s have changed.........maybe the public is better off than appeared earlier.........millions instead of thousands

Got a call from the AG's office. The trial will be May 5-7, 2015 unless a continuance is granted.

Of course a continuance will be granted.

Thanks for the notice Dogfish, Bet Bob (Aka Cowlitz Fisherman) is happy

AG is requesting no continuance. They have had ample time to get new counsel. Stall tactic

Of course it is a stall tactic and the private attorney will use it.