Portland State University

PDXScholar
Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses

1980

The parcelization of the open range, a conflict in land use : grazing

rights versus residential and recreation land sales in Klickitat
County, Washington
Dennis A. Olson
Portland State University

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
Part of the Physical and Environmental Geography Commons

Recommended Citation
Olson, Dennis A., "The parcelization of the open range, a conflict in land use : grazing rights versus residential and recreation land sales
in Klickitat County, Washington" (1980). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2985.

10.15760/etd.2975

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of
PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
i·

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Dennis A. Olson for the Master

of Science in Geography presented February 1980.

Title: The Parcelization of the Open Range, A Conflict in

Land Use: Grazing Rights versus Residential and

Recreation Land Sales in Klickitat County, Washington.

APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE:

John Dary

A large part of Klickitat County, Washington, is legally

and traditionally open rangeland. In recent years, range and

forest lands have been sold to, and divided by, real estate

investors for development as recreational and residential prop-

erty. Traditional rangeland grazing areas and "cattle drive

routes" are no longer available to ranchers or are jeopardized

by new land owner.ship patterns.

In some areas "herd law districts" have been established

to control cattle movement and prevent livestock from roaming

 2

onto neighboring properties. However, cattlemen feel grazing

rights and patterns are essential to their livelihood in many

rural areas. These grazing rights nave been threatened by an

increasing number of sales of small parcels of land in open

range areas.

Many purchasers of small plots do not realize that their

particular land may be in open range land and they may be

disturbed at the "trespass" of livestock on their property.

Some recreational deyelopments in the county have had major

conflicts with nearby ranchers over_ grazing rights. Property

owners complain of cattle destroying gardens, livestock on

roadways and a~imals disturbing residential areas. Cattle-

men on the other hand, refer to killing and butchering of

animals, cattle being "run" by dogs and snowmobilers, and

cattle drive routes being blocked by no trespassing signs.

Thus, traditional open livestock grazing areas and "cattle

drive routes" are no longer available to ranchers or are

jeopardized by new +and ownership patterns. Social conflicts

and legal questions are becoming increasingly common and more

serious.

The threefold question researched herein is: (1) What

are the extent and potential economic consequences of land

parcelization in Klickitat County?, (2)What are the political

and social costs of parcelization?, and (3) What measures

today are, or could be, used to ameliorate the land use

conflict? These are answered by studying the various aspect~

of the problem, including the historic land use change, legal

 3

mechanisms which r~gulate livestock grazing and land parcel-

ization; taxation; the economic-~ffect upon ~ivestock produc-

tion; crime and social conflict; costs to- county services;

and environmental impacts. The geography of the change it-

self is depicted on several maps.

Because of the varied aspects of the question, a num-

ber of information sources and collection methods are used.

Major sources are the official records of Klickitat County

and interviews with land owners, real estate agents, livestock

associations~ and government officials.

Sample survey techniques are used to obtain information

and attitudes. from variou~ sources, such as property owners.

The paper includes potential solutions to the problem through

private and government actions.

THE PARCELIZATION OF THE OPEN RANGE, A CONFLICT

IN LAND USE: GRAZING RIGHTS VERSUS RESIDENTIAL

AND RECREATION LAND SALES IN KLICKITAT COUNTY,

WASHINGTON

by

DENNIS A. OLSON

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
GEOGRAPHY

Portland State University

1980
TO THE OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH:

The members of the Committee approve the thesis of

Dennis A. Olson presented October 13, 1980.

J:o~Dart

APPROVED:

Richard Lycan, Chairman, Department of Geography

Stanl Graduate Stu Research

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation

to Willert Rhynsburger, thesis committee chairman, for his

invaluable assistance· and advice throughout all phases of

this study. Thanks are also due to John Dart and Dale
I. Courtney, members of the thesis committee, for their assist-

ance, and to Alexander Gassaway for his help while he served

bn the committee.

Sheri Vice and Keri Stratton-Gibbs are to be commended

for their fine cartographic skills.

Also, the cooperation of the Klickitat County Board of

Commissioners is appreciated .for supporting much of this

research while I was employed as Klickitat County Planning

Director.

And, of course a special thank you to my wife and child-

ren for their understanding and suppor~ throughout the prepa~

·ration of this thesis.

:(
;
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF FIGURES . vii

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . viii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION 1

Review of the Literature. 2

Statement of the Problem. 4

II HISTORICAL USE OF RANGELAND IN KLICKITAT COUNTY. 9

The Environmental Setti.ng 9

A Rangeland Lexicon • 14

Stock Grazing . . 15

Ranches and Farms 20

Land Speculation. 23

III LEGAL ASPECTS OF LAND USE . • 27

Restricting the Open Range. 27

Klickitat County Herd Laws . • . 32

Grazing Leases . . . . . . . . . 38

Land Use Regulations . . . . . • 42

IV CONTEMPORARY LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS IN KLICKITAT

COUNTY. . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . • 44
 v

CHAPTER PAGE

v RECENT LAND CONVERSION AND THE CURRENT CONFLICT . . -. 62

Land Parcelization. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 62
Land-use Conflict . ·67

VI THE SURVEY AND ITS FINDINGS. 70

Administering the Questionnaire • . . . . . . . 70

Survey Results . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Personal Interviews 78

VII THE ECONOMICS OF PARCELIZATION 81

The Livestock Economy and Land Use. . . . . _ - 81

Recreational/Residential Land Use . . . . . _ - 83

VIII SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF

PARCELIZATION . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

IX TRENDS AND COMPROMISES . . 101

Summary 105

BIBLIOGRAPHY • . 107

APPENDICES . . 116
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

I Land Parcelization Activity, 1909-1948 . . 26

II Klic~itat County Herd Law Districts . . 33

III Klickitat County Agriculture Statistics . 45
IV Klickitat County Range/Pasture, 1969-1974 • "46

v Number of Cattle and Caves on Farms in Klickitat

County, 1850-1974 • . • . • 47
VI Klickitat, Kittitas, Yakima & Oka?ogan County

Cattle, 1945-1974. . • • . • . • . . . . . . . 48

VII Sheep on Farms in Klickitat County, 1870:....1974 • • :;S.4

VIII Sheep on Farms in Yakima and Klickitat Counties,

1880-1900. • . 55

IX Mt. Adams Grazing Program . • • • . • • . . • • • 59

X Klickitat County Population Estimates, 1970-1977,

and Percent Change • • • • • . . . . . . . • • 63

XI Klickitat County Land Parcelization, 1974-1978. • 64

XII Assessed Valuation of 3 Remote Subdivisions . . • 89

XIII Recreation Subdivisions ~~~ Their Effects on

Agricultural Lands • • 91

XIV Summary of Fiscal Impacts of an Isolated Recrea-

tional Subdivision (112 lots) in Klamath

County, Oregon . • 95
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Location Map. • • • . • • . . . • . • • . • . 10

2. Land Parcelization Activity, 1909-1948 . . • • • • 25

3. Herd Law Districts . . . • 37

4. Present Agricultural Land Use . • • • • 39

5. Existing and Proposed Herd Law Districts and

Major Recent Parcelization Activity • • . • 40

6. Number of Cattle and Calves on Farms in Klickitat

County, 1860-1974 . . . . 49

7. Number of Cattle, 1945-1974; Klickitat, Kittitas,

Yakima, and Okanogan Coun~ies. . . • • . • • . 51

8. Sheep on Farms in Klickitat County, 1870-1974 . • 56

9. Typical Livestock Movements, 1950's-1960's.. • . . 57

10. Study Area. • • . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . 71

11. Ranch Sales Activity . . 86

12. King Ranch. 100

13. Proposed Herd Law District. 103

I.
 LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE

A Chapter 16.24, Revised Code of Washington (RCW) • 117

B Washington State Department of Natural Resources,

Sample Grazing Lease . . . . • • . . 120

c State Land ~eases in Klickitat County Sample

Page 126

D Rangeland Classifications by County Assessor 128.

E-1 Rancher Questionnaire. . 130

E-2 Purchaser Questionnaire. 133

E-3 Realtor Questionnaire. • 136

F-1 Rancher Survey Tabulation. . . . 139

F-2 Purchaser Survey Tabulation. . . . 143

F-3 Realtor Survey Tabulation . • . . 148

G Personal Interviews. . . . ·. 151

H Homestead Land.Corporation, Flyer Mailed To

Ranchers. 154

I Columbia Rim Owners Association, By-Laws . . . . • 157.

J-1 Letter to County Officials and Ma~ling List . . . . 161

J-2 Letter to Participants in a Range Multiple Use

Management Program and Mailing List • . 164

J-3 Respondents to Investigat6r's Inquiries. 167

J-4 Extracts from Letters to County Board of

Commissioners 169
 ix
APPENDIX PAGE

J-5 Letter of Thomas Bedell . . 171

J-6 Letter of Glen D. Fulcher. 173

J-7 Letter of Ted Klein. . . . 175
J-8 Letter of Ronald A. Michieli 177

,.
I
l
;
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A large part of Klickitat County, Washington, is legally

and traditionally open rangeland. In recent years, range and

'
I
l
j forest lands have been sold to, and divided by, real estate

I investors for development as recreational and residential

,. prope:i:-ty. In some areas "herd law districts" have been estab-

lished to reduce free cattle movement and prevent livestock

from roaming onto neighboring properties. However, grazing

rights and livestock movement patterns are essential to the

livelihood of cattlemen in many rural areas. These grazing

rights have been threatened by an increasing number of .sales

of small parcels of land in open range areas. Most of these

parcels are twenty-acre divisions or smaller, some as small as

two and one ha~f acres.

Unfortunately, many purchasers of small plots do not

realize that their particular land may be in open range land

and they may be disturbed at the "trespass" of livestock on

their property. Some recreational developments in the County

have had major conflicts with nearby ranchers over grazing

rights. Thus, traditional open livestock grazing areas and

"cattle drive routes" are no longer available to ranchers or

are jeopardized by new land ownership patterns. Social

 2

conflicts and legal questions are becoming increasingly com-

mon and more serious.

Although many aspects of range management, recreation

development, and land use patterns have been researched exten-

sively there seems to have been relatively little attention

"
given to the range-recreation conflict. The problem is widely

recognized by range users, real estate interests, and public

officials, yet little major research work has been undertaken.

~

This thesis is a start toward further invest~gation of the

problem, and may be of some use as a contribution to the body

of literature on rural land use.

SURVEY OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

A survey of relevant literature discloses a dearth of

information regarding specific work on the parcelization of

range land for non-grazing purposes. ~o~ever, much valuabl~

data are available fr~m general and t~chnical sources on ._ -·

r.:ange management, l:l.istory, .ge<?graphy ,_ .law and ___ economics, __ and ..

in the fields of land use planni~g,.real estate practices,

and p~blic administration. A number of geographic works bear

significantly on the problem addressed .herein in a general

way.! Campbell's Masters thesis (1969) reviews the basic pro-

blem of remote subdivisions, while Hol~grieve's ·article (1976)

addresses the history of land speculation· and its effect on

land uses. Sheldon Ericksen (1953) provides a more localized

--geographic-and- historic--look- at rura1--1and-.use··change·s·· in- an

area not too distant from this study area. Jordan (1972,1977Y'
 3
provides some interesting background on open range cattle

ranching generally as do Mealor and Prunty (1976) •

And, some basic geographic thought on the concept of the

effects of laws upon land-use patterns is found in Hartshorne

(1939,1959), Allix {1948) and Broek (1938).

A general history of the settlement of the Pacific North-

west from the 1840's through the early 1900's is available in

Boyce (1937), Meinig {1968), Oliphant (1968) and in more

popularized versions in Sheller (1944) and Splawn {1944).

Literature from the field of land use planning explores

the process and results of land subdividing from both nat~onal

Caoxley, 1977; Economic Research Service, 1970) and localized

or site-specific viewpoints {Hoover, n.d.; Ragatz, 1977; Page,

1977; Wall, 1977).

The economic effects of ranch sales and subdivision are

the concern of Oppenheimer (1966, 1972) and Gray {1968) while

the overall loss of open space, and the economic consequences,

are the topics of Downie (1974) , Gum (1977) and Lane (1964).

The perspective of rangeland management, i.e. the protec-

tion of the physical environment for livestock grazing, wild-

life enhancement and other rural, agricultural uses, can be

found in a number of well-known volumes, including classic

.textbooks by Stoddart and Smith (1975) and A. W. Sampson (1974)

and in pertinent articles by Houslsy(l970), Anderson (1975),

Burcham ( 19 7 5) and Krueg.e r ( 19 7 5) ~ Kruege.r' s article can

be found along with a number of other useful articles in a

-- vo:l:ume-entit-led-~ange-· Multiple- Us~·Management ,.-·published- in

1975 by the Cooperative Extension Service.

 4
Lastly, the legal and administrative concerns of and

government policy on rural land subdivision are expressed in

works by Weber, Youmans and Harrington (1977), Calef (1960),

Elias (1963), Foss (1960) and the State of Oregon's Bureau of

Governmental Research and Services (1975) •.

However, as much literature as there is on related

general topics, very little has been written upon the specific

problem of the historic or current conflict between livestock

grazing practices and residential or recreational land use

development. The larger problems of settlement patterns, open

space deterioration, improper or uneconomical land development

and the "quality of life," from both the socio-economic and

environmental aspects, have.therefore a considerable l::x:idy of rele-

vant literature. xet the specific problem stated herein seems

to have been subject to very little close academic or popular

scrutiny.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The problem addressed by this thesis consists of three

interlockin~ questions: (1) What are the extent and potential

economic consequences of land conversion (parcelization) in

Klickitat County?, (2) what are-the political and social costs

of parcelization?, and (3) what measures today are, or could

be, used to ameliorate the land-use conflict?

The social, politic~!, and histo~ical setting of the

research problem is outlined in Chapters II-IV. Chapter V

analyzes the land conversion__.p.rocess..--and-. por.:t::ra-ys ·-the -resul-

tant conflict. The research methodology is explained and

 5
statistical survey results set forth in Chapter V-~. Chapters

VII, VIII, and IX respectively undertake to answer the three

questions of the thesis problem.

The above mentioned questions that this paper will attempt

to answer will be approached in the following manner:

1. What is the extent.of change in land use over 125

years in this traditional rangeland area? This

question is answered by analysis of records which

show change in land use, including aerial photographs,

assessor's records, title company records, and

similar documents. This must be the first question

researched because it shows how much change has

occured and where.

2. What have been the socio-economic impacts/effects of

this change in land use? . This question required a

variety of research sources and techniques because of

its many aspects. It involved cost-benefit study of

the economics of the cattle industry versus real

estate development; taxation; crime and social con-.

flict; relative costs to public services; and the

legal mechanisms which regulate livestock grazing

and land parcelization. Here again public records

provided the major sources of data. Survey tech-

niques were also used. Sample surveys using personal

interview and mail techniques were used within a

selected study area, to obtain data on the extent of

the problem perceived. Three groups were surveyed -

 6
ranchers, recreation property owners, and real

estate qgeqts. Unstructured personal interviews

were also used to obtain information from members

of these groups and from public officials. Addi-

tional information was obtained from meetings with

various groups concerned such as the local Cattle-

man's Association, The Klickitat County Planning

Commission, and granges, and from herd law hearings.

3. What are the solutions to the adverse impacts of

this change? Or, what mitigating measures can be

taken to prevent adverse impacts from the change?

These questions have been answered using the facts

obtained from the first two. After a clear picture

of the problem is available and the opinions of all

I concerned obtained, then ·some conclusions and
i
I recommendations are suggested.

Legal records and state and local laws and ordinances

II
are used to indicate the development, status, and possible
I suggested changes in the regulation of range land use. The
I
I Revised Code of Washington (RCW) , and local "herd law dis-
it trictn and land use ordinances are major references.
I
Ij Ranch economics information provides an insight into the

impact of the cattle industry on the economy of the county

and·how parcelization has affected the income of the individ-

ual ~ivestock producers, and.thus its impact on the local

economy. This information is from county offices, such as

the Auditor and Extension Service, and from the ranch owners
themselves.
 7
Real Estate development data show the extent of parcel-

ization and subsequent development change in assessed valuation,

and demographic changes. These materials are from title com-

panies, the County Auditor, Assessor, Planning and· Treasurer's

offices, federal agencies, and from real estate\developers and

agents, and property owners.

Data on public cost come from such state and local govern-

ment agencies, as the cou~ty planning, engineering, sheriff,

and Commissioner's departments and school, fire, and utility

district records.

The physical inventory (crops, livestock and crop pro-

duction, ~oils, drainage, topography, vegetation, climate) was

obtained from local government agencies like the Extension

Service and the Soil Conservation Service.

The whole concept of the effects of laws upon land use

patterns is one of considerable importance and some neglect.

Hartshorne (1959, 52) notes the observation of Allix that only

recently has the "fundamental and enduring importance of the

cadaster, the individual landholding, as· a determinant of far-

reaching effect on agricultural practices, settlements, and the

whole economy of an area" been recognized. In the case pre-

sented here, the "individual landholdin~" established through

federal homestead laws, had dramatic effects upon the pastoral

cattle industry. ....

Finally, the role of economics in shaping l.and ·use is

.
noted herein. Hartshorne ( 193 9, 3 35) quotes Broek that "econanic

forces are by far the most influential agents in transforming

the landscap~" and expands the thought by referencing Krebs~

 8
remarks that settlement form. and land di vision may also be

determined by cultural events that are "economically not

rational."

Land is divided and used ..• primarily for economic

purposes, even though the manner in which these
things are done and their resultant character may
be influenced by cultural factors other than
economic.

This, .too, will be seen within this study.

 CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL USE OF RANGELAND

IN KLICKITAT COUNTY

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The national debate over property and liberty has

a habit of recurring cyclically in the nation. We
believe the Nation may be in the upswing of the cycle:
{Boxley, 7)

Klickitat County is a microcosm of the rur~l land use

changes occu~ring in much of the western United States. Its

unique but varied setting, its historical land use and con-

temporary land use problems provide an opportunity to study

the effects of land use change upon a rather isolated geo-

graphic and socio-economic r~gion as that region faces an

uncertain future. A brief physical description of the county

is necessary in order to understand its historic and contem-

--porary 1 an d use. 1

Klickitat County is located in south-central Washington.

Goldendale, the county seat, is 190 miles southeast of Seattle

and 90 miles east-northeast of Portland, Oregon (see· Figure 1).

Klickitat County varies in both topography and climate from

its eastern to its western border. It is 84 miles east and

west and 30 miles north and south at its widest point. The

1
The data for the description was compiled by the
Klickitat County Planning Department and the Office of the
Superintendent of Schools.
PACIFIC OCEAN

· Figure l. Location map.

~
 11
Columbia River forms its southern·border. The western bor-

der is the east slopes of the Cascade ·Mountains while the

Simcoe Mountains are on the north •. The general ~opography is

one of mountains, plateaus, and narrow valley lowlands. There

are four physical units developed for agriculture--the Horse

Heaven Hills plateau, the Klickitat River Valley, the White

Salmon River Valiey, and bars and benchlands of the Columbia

River. The incised valley of the Columbia River is the dom-

inant and most scenic feature of the area. Elevations in

Klickitat County vary from the average flood level of the

Columbia River at White Salmon of 50 feet above sea level to

peaks of 5,800 feet in the Simcoe Mountain ridge. Most of

the farm land is on elevated plateaus above 1,000 feet above

sea level (Figure 4).

The Horse Heaven Hills .plateau makes up the eastern

third of the county. It i~ a gently rolling plain that

slopes southward to the Columbia River, and comprises a

tableland of basalt covered with·a mantle of rich volcanic

and loess soil. Terrain is accessible and highly adaptable

for mechanized wheat farming on an extensive scale. The

plateau is cut by Alder Creek, Glade Creek and Pine Creek.

Farm communities Bickleton and Roosevelt are located in this

area. The plateau has an elevation of 3,015 feet at Bickle-

ton and 241 feet at Roosevelt on the Columbia River.

Klickitat River Valley ·lies in the.central part of the

county and.consists of bott9m lands and river benchlands. The

main branch of the Little Klickitat River has sources in the

Simcoe Mountains and Horse Heaven Hills. Lower valley lands

 12
are at elevations of 1,100 feet at Goldendale and 263 feet at

Klickitat. Most of the accessible farm land of the' valley

surrounds Goldendale.

The Klickitat River descends to the Columbia at Lyle

through gorges and a narrow valley. Volcanic basalt rock. under-

lies Klickitat valley and precipitous rock outcroppings exposed

by ~treamcutting and wind erosion are common.

White Salmon River Valley is in western Klickitat Coun~y.

It is a short north-south valley which heads on Mount Adams and

descends through basaltic plateaus to the Columbia River. The

upper valley contains prairies and basaltic tablelands suited

for agriculture. High prairie areas of level and rolling _topo-

graphy surround Guler and Troutlake at an elevation of about

2,000 feet. Another upland prairie area in the upper White

Salmon basin is Glenwood, a livesto_ck district, with an average

elevation of about 2,100 feet. Some small river bottom areas

about 500 to 700 feet above sea level are found near White

Salmon.

The Columbia shore in Klickitat County is called the

"North Bank." Most of it is precipitous, basalt cliffs and

slopes, rising from a river shore elevation of 50-200 feet to

a height of 2,000 feet. There are numerous small river bar

flood plains and benchlands which were flooded periodically in

past years as the Columbia River rose and fell as much as 30

feet with the seasons. There are some benchlands at, Dalles~

port, Bingen, Lyle and White Salmon developed for tree fruit,

--berry. and- vegetable-farming. -eons~ruc~ion of hydroeleccric-and

 13
navigation improvement dams, Bonneville, The Dalles and John

Day have equalized the river level and also have flooded some

of the lower bars permanently.

Klickitat County soil is broadly divided into seven gen-

eral classes. Only about 30 ~ercent of ~he county area is

classified as good to fair soil, suited for crops and culti-

vated pastures. About 60 percent is too rough, too high, o~

too dry and is useful only for fo

l ten percent is too rocky or too dry even for agricultural or

II
I ·£orestry use.
l Klickitat County climate varies from aht:unid cloudy
I western Cascade Mountain belt to a very dry belt in the Horse
I j Heaven Hills in the eastern part of the county. Precipitation
I
I
varies from over 40 inches in the west end to about eight

inches in the eastern part of the county. From Goldendale

. eastward to Bickleton, and further toward Benton County, condi-

tions become progressively drier. At Roosevelt the estimated

rainfall is about 10 inches. As a result, eastern Klickitat

County is primarily a dryland or summer fallow farming region.

The Klickitat Valley and Goldendale area are in a zone of 15

to 30 inches of annual rainfall.

Precipitation has a m~rked seasonal pattern. October

through March is a winter wet season, with snow common in the

colder months. Summers are hot and dry. The growing season

varies from 150 days to 175 days in the central and northern

areas to about 200 days along the Columbia River toward the

west end of the County.

 14
A RANGELAND LEXICON

Some definitions are also in order. This paper uses the

.definitions provided in American Society of Range Management

(1964), A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management.

A range is all land producing native forage for animal
consumption but does not include cultivated land, even cul-

tivated pasture land. Open range is a more-or-less legal term

meaning that grazing area not included within established

fencing (herd law) districts. It is not a physical description

of the range, such as treeless prairie. Indeed most of the

remaining rangeland in Klickitat County is wooded or scrub land.

Free range is that range open to grazing regardless of owner-

ship and without payment of fees. The teJ:?m is primarily used

in a historic sense to denote land not yet homesteaded or public

land not yet restricted. It is not. to be confused with open

range, which may indeed be under private ownership. A woodland

range is a wooded or forested area used for grazing.

A summer range is one that is grazed primarily during the

sununer growing season. Winter range is grazed 'during the winter

months •. Grazing is the consumption of range or pasture forage

by animals. Grazing capacity is the maximum stocking rate

possible without damage to vegetation. A grazing district is

an administrative unit of state or federal range land estab-

lished by law. A grazing right is a right to graze public or

private land vested upon a beneficiary by law or contract.

Grazing trespass is the grazing of livestock on a range

area without proper permission. An overgrazed range is one

 15
that has deteriorated due to continued overuse. Overgrazing

is the continued overuse of an overgrazed range whereas over-

stocking is placing a number of animals on a given area that

will result in overuse. Thus a range may be overstocked for

a short period without lasting damage. However, continued

overstocking will lead to overgrazing.

A ranch is an establishment with specific boundaries,

together with its lands and improvements, used for the grazing

and production of livestock. Some census data used herein uses

the term farm for the same·~oncept. Trail herding or a cattle

drive is the controlled movement of livestock over specific

routes to specific destinations.

Finally, an animal unit is considered to be one mature

cow with a calf, or their equivalent (sheep, horses, etc.).

An animal unit month is the amount of feed or forage required

by an animal unit for one month. Then, acres per animal unit

month is the estimated number of acres necessary to provide

forage for one animal unit for one month.

STOCK GRAZING

Before them spread beauty surpassing anything Ben

[Snipes] had pictured as a cattleman's paradise. Mile
upon mile of bunchgrass waved its tallness ... Wonderful
grass! An .entire day's travel through tall bunchgrass.
Why, thousands of cattle could feed here and grow fat
as butter! (Sheller, 27-29).

Cattlemen have played an important role in the history

and economy of Klickitat County since the earliest settlement

of the area. Historical sources (Ballou, 221; Splawn, 1.31;

Oliphant, 99) place the first permanent settlements in the

 16

year 1859 with some earlier cattle grazing activities by 1856.

Earlier settlement was prevented by Indian hostilities during

the early 1850's and it was not until the end of the Indian

campaigns in October, 1858 and the subsequent ratification of

the reservation treaties in March, 1859 that the settler felt

safe to cross into the Klickitat-Yakima areas, nor did the

Army let them (Meinig, 201, 205). The County was chartered

that same year {Ballou, 177).

With the settlement of the Indian problems came a con~

stant flow of settlers into the area. The authoritative

Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties

(1904, 101) {hereafter referred to as Illustrated History) notes

that by 1860 the population of Klickitat County courd be

"numbered in three places of figures" and that "stockraising

had from the first claimed a large~ measure of attention than

any other business" and that it was the "chief occupation of

people . u

The 1860 census counted 230 people in Klickitat County.

The census also notes 793 dairy cows and heifers, 1, 881 other .

cattle, 131 pigs, twenty mules, 187 horses and colts on farms

within the county, but notes only 122 acres of improved farm

land. However, the census takers did not venture into the

realm of the open range stockmen who were already grazing

large numbers of cattle in the area. It was not until much

late~, perhaps for the 19~0 census, that an accurate total

livestock count was·attempted (Washington State Department

of __ Ag.riculture,. 9}.
lll!'I - ,_._.Hl"'lm-'4+-il~-- · - - - " ~-.. "

17

Ballou (177} says Klickitat County was "the front door

to a cattle empire, which existed for two decades." Ben

Snipes, the "Northwest Cattle King'' operated the "world's

greatest bovine highway," 225 miles long and 40 miles wide

along the eastern slopes of the Cascades from the Columbia

River to Canada (Klickitat County Public Utility District

Number 1, 1963, 8) (hereafter referred to as PUD}. With his

headquarters in The Dalles and homesteads near Goldendale

and Toppenish, Snipes grazed his cattle that at times._ numbered

as high as 125,000 head over the vase Central Washington range.

Meinig (99) comments that by the summer of 1877, cattle

were reported to be "ranging everywhere over the rolli"ng hills;~~-:

and that newspapers of the day called the area "overstocked."

In 1879 the Alder Creek voting district's 35 voters alone

owned 6,000 head of cattle, 16,000 sheep and 500 horses.

The report of the sheep commissioner of 1888 showed

86,000 sheep in the County, pl~s an additional 63,000 that were

.brought in from Oregon that year for summer pasture. ' Repo.rted

earnings of the sheepmen in that year were over $118,000. With

the exception of Snipes' empire,. the scale· of individual oper-

ations remained small.compared to Texas and Great Plains oper-

tions, and the Eastern Washington range is segmented by major

rivers, canyons and ridges compared to the vast Texas range.

Using material drawn from the 1880 census, Meinig (287)

portrays a typical permanent cattle op~ration of 1879 in

Klickitat County:
·---- ~~~-·-.--· ~· .. ~ ~·-~ . .. ~ ·-~·- -·

18
The range consisted of about 12,500 square miles of
public domain, all of it now heavily overgrazed. The
herd numbered about 5,000,.including 1,725 calves
branded during that year. Five hundred head were
marketed, mostly steers which brought an average of
twenty dollars apiece. Natural losses ran about 10
per cent. The only land owned was 160 acres upon
which a house, two barns, and corrals were located.
None of the land was cultivated, nor were any of the
meadows cut for hay. Because the rangeland was rel-
atively rough country, the cattle tended to group into
numerous small herds each grazing in a restricted
locality, and there was no general cooperative round-
up ..•• This particular operator employed six men;
others of ten kept fewer regularly and more during the
branding and marketing season. Whatever the practice,
wages were low, the investment in property and equip-
ment (chiefly horses and saddles) was small, and so
.long as the market held such cattle raising was
profitable.

Several events occurred which brought the decline of the

livestock indust~y from its position of total dominance in

Klickitat County (and throughout.the Northwest) to its present

level.

Economic depressions of the early 1870's were the first

impactor on the livestock industry as cattlemen found no

market for their expanding herds which, left on the range,

quickly overgrazed it so that it deteriorated rapidly.

Beef prices dropped from the 1865 high of seventy dollars

a head paid in the Cariboo (BC) gold mines to ten dollars a

head in 1872 at The Dalles! (Washington State Department of

Agriculture, 15). New markets in Wyoming and Montana lasted

only temporarily (Meinig, 287-288).

Several disastFous winters severely crippled and finally

marked the end of the open range cattle industry. The snow

and cold of the winters of 1861-62 and 1880-81 caused the

deaths of literally thousands of cattle, ho"rses and sheep due

 19
to insufficient feed, lack of shelter, and even lack of water

(frozen watering holes) (Oliphant, 268; Boyce, 17; Ballou,

192). Ben Snipes, for instance, was left with less than one

hundred cattle out of a herd of thousands after the 1861-62

winter (Sheller, 124; PUD, 1963; 9). Meinig ~eports

that losses of 30 to 50 percent, totalling tens of thousands

of animals, resulted from the severe winter of 1880-81.

Meinig (288) continues:

The winter of 1880-81 ... was •.. economically far more

calamitous [than the winter of 1861-62] ..• The main
export surpluses were ..• wiped out, many a stockman was
fincancially ruined, and the whole industry was severe-
ly shaken •.. This catastrophe marked the virtual end
of the open-range cattle industry: ranching continued~
but in the face of mounting difficulties. ·

And again in 1889-90 a hard winter had "calamitous

results" on the range cattle-.industry. "The results of this

tragic winter aroused public opinion as to the need for provid-

ing better care for stock in winter." Local newspapers

advocated that stockmen hang on to their stock, keep hay-

stacks for emergenci·es, and practice diversified farming {Boyce,

45-46). After such disastrous winters it ~as obvious to stock-

men that access to "protected winter ranges and supplemental

winter fodder" was essential. This meant a stabilization of

operations and further investment.

Hundreds of cattle raisers, who envisaged the new

conditions, did hang on to their stock and went into
diversified farming with gusto, prepared winter feed,
built adequate shelter, and obtained a higher and
purer grade of cattle. Thus, a great change had come
in methods of handling.stock and.reducing·the size of
herds. This date (1890] marked the end of the large
'free range' cattle owner in Washington Territory and
brought to the foreground a less .lucrative, but a bit
more stable system of raising saleable cattle (Boyce,
46) •
 20
Further, ranges, especially in Klickitat County; were

severely overgrazed by the 1880's and available grazing land

was being reduced rapidly by farm settlements (Meinig, 288).

RANCHES AND FARMS

Farming, like livestock grazing, had an early start in

Klickitat County. The first grain crop in the county was

reported in 1861 (Illustrated History, 97). Newspaper accounts

of 1870 note that the "rich lands of 'the swale'" (Swale Creek

drainage) were rapidly filling up wuth farmers from the

Willamette Valley (Meinig, 230-231). By the spring of 1880,

Oliphant (99) notes, "large stock owners" of the county were

so alarmed at the rapid settlement of the area that they gath-

ered up their herds.with the intention of "driving them east."

Meinig (294) .. brings up. the interesting point that stock-

men had no legal means of resisting or stopping the f arrn expan-

sion. Homestead acts limited title to a quarter section.

Even by taking advantage of the several federal land acts and

with "bogus filings" by hired hands and relatives the total

acreage obtainable would be small, thus there was no way to

acquire sufficient acreage for a successful livestock opera-

tion. "The earning capacity of grazing lands was too small

to warrant outright purchase in any quantit~ from either the

government or the railroad, and neither offered any type of

long term lease."

The intent of the federal land act programs was, of

course,·- to -promote s·ettlement· and- ·far~ing. · - s·ettlers had

 21
maximum flexibility in obtaining and developing their claim.

And the earning capacity of cultivated land was potentially

at least great.

Along with the farmers came market roads and market towns.

Goldendale was platted in 1872 (Ballou, 392) . The establish-

ment of this town in the center of Klickitat range drew bitter

opposition from stockmen. It took action by the territor:j/al

legislature to put the issue on the ballot at a .general elec-

tion to settle the issue (the proponents of the town obviously

won) (I-llustrated History, 102) ;

Also with the farmer came barbed wire fences:

Barbed wire fences were beginning to cut up the

ranges and the stock routes, and the controversy
between farmer and stockman now flared over "herd
law" legislation. Without fences, wandering stock
damaged crops; with them they were themselves
injured by the dangerous barbs--who was respon-
sible for the damages in either case? Hardly had
the argument become heated before it was ended by
passage of "herd laws" which placed liabilities for
damage upon the owners of trespassing livestock and
gave full support to the fence builder. It was a
perfect expression of the.decisive shift in bal-
ance between the farmers and the stockmen in the
region. (Me~nig, 288)

Boyce (43) not.es that .the fencing. of homesteads· usu-

ally meant fencing the best watering holes. "Thus greatly

inconveniencing the 'open range' 'stockmen."

The livestock industry was thus effectively pushed by

farmers from the valley and prairie grazing lands to the

marginal scrub timber and forest lands west and north of

the Klickitat and Little Klickitat Rivers. The sheep industry

expanded in Klickitat County for some time after the decline

of the open range cattle business. As noted earlier, statistics

 22
on the number of sheep in the late 1880's were impressive.

Approximately 150,000 head were owned in the county by the end

of that decade (Ballou, 417) .

Actually, the gain of the sheepmen was the loss of the

cattlemen. The sheepmen gradually took control of the remain-

ing open range land, beeause land too-overgrazed for cattle

was still usable by sheep. And once grazed by sheep the veg-

etation was so closely cropped that cattle could not survive.

Also, while the market for cattle was erratic, that for wool

was steadier. AlEfo, Meinig is convinced that the sheep in-

dustry was better organized and managed {Meinig, 292).

Klickitat County remained an important sh~ep reg.ion

throughout the 1890's and early 1900's. The Klickitat uplands

provided excellent pasture which did not interfere with ex-

panding farmlands. Although the county retained large flocks

for some years, these were aguroented in the summer by large

bands that were ferried across the Columbia River from the

prosperous sheep region of northern Oregon to summer pastures

{Meinig, 292; Oliphant, 339; Ballou, 417).

Lyle, Washington became one of the West's leading sheep

markets and shipping points during this period with huge sheep

sheds where thousands of sheep were marketed and shipped

( p UD I 19 6 3 I 9) .

Ballou (418-420)· t'eports that one cause fdr the ev-ent.ual

decline of the sheep industry in the county was disease. A

scaly infection called "scabies" nearly wrecked the industry

-during-. several-- successive years.

, ~.
~-- .. ,...,,,.,,,.. -!"''"' -·f --.... ... ..-~ ...... ._._ _.,,..,.....,._. .... .,.~ ....

23

By the 1920's the farm and livestock grazing question

had stabilized since most of the tillable soil had been home-

steaded and cultivated. The livestock industry, too, settled

into the permanent ranch-type operation. The open-range graz-

ing operation was a thing of the past. Most cattlemen head-

quartered out of a home ranchstead on their winter grazing

areas. Most then owned or leased summer grazing land {public

or private) in higher and more northern areas such as in the

Simcoe Mountains. Cattle hands numbered in the hundreds,

rather than in the thousands of .. the Ben Snipes era. Cattle

drives from winter to summer pastures and back were but a mere

vestage of the giant trail drives to Canada or Wyoming of the

1860's and 1870's. Yet they remain even today an-integral

part of the overall ranch operation. It was if+. fact the rela-

tively close proximity of summer and winter range areas that

kept the livestock industry successful in Klickitat County.

This pattern remains today. However, cattlemen today

conceive a new threat to their existence. That threat is the

rapid increase in the division or parcelization of range

lands for recreation and residential use.

LAND SPECULATION

Before looking at this contemporary problem, however, it

should be noted that this concern has been raised several times

by ranchers during the twentieth century. A notable example

occurredduring the period 1909-1912. Perusal of the old plat

-·-books·- in the County Audi tor's ·vau1 ts--reveals a· significant

amount of land speculation during this period. Ballou (53-.55)

 24
quo"t;es an early homesteader who owned 1, 120 acres in the

Goodnoe Hills area, that with the start of the construction

of the railroad along the north bank of the Columbia River,

real estate developers from Portland began to promote areas

of Klickitat County as prime orchard sites.

They [the realtors] came right up and bought all

the land they could ... There were six of us (that)
had more than 1,000 acres each ••. Cook and Company
offered a plan of surveying our land into five and
ten acre tracts, and they would sell it at $100
per acre ••. Some was good wheat land. Some was side-
hill pasture and some was just sand, rocks and sun-
shine •.. I sold out in 1907.

That particular ranch had been homesteaded in 1865 by

Thomas Burgen. He was at one time considered one.of the

larger cattle owners (Ballou, 231}.

Auditor's records verify this occurrence with the platting

of "Goodnoe Fruit Farms" (five phases) in 1908. Table I and

Figure 2 show developments during this period. And similar

land division activity can be no·ted in the post World War I

and II periods, however, not as dramatically, since most

divisions were individual parcelizations rather than in plat-

ted subdivisions. Assessor's records show,. that for the most

part, these ventures were not very successful. Many of the

plats listed in Table I for instance, were subsequently

vacated or remained in single ownership or at the most in two

or three ownerships. J.Remnants of abandoned orchards and

homesites mingle with·abandoned homesteads throughout the

county.
 R12E R14E R16E R18E R20E R22E
YAKIMA COUNTY

.,Yakima
z >
co I-
I-
k'
z
CD
m
z-i
::::>
0 0
~ z
<( (')
z 0
<( c
::!:
z
<( ~
:i.::
_!!2

z
'It
I-

I
!

·I
11 Home Seekers Orchard Lands

1 Fruit Home Colony 12 Sundale Orchard Lands I

2 Inglenook Fruit Farm 13 Mountain View Orchard Tracts

3 Goodnoe Fruit Farms 14 Klickitat Orchard Tracts

4 Nutland Hills Orchard Lands 15 Grand Dalles Orchard Tracts

Maryhill 16 Bertha-N Orchard Homes

6 Alderdale Tracts 17 Maryhill Lpnd Company
LAND PARCELIZATION ACTIVITY, Cliffs 18 Lyle-Klickitat Orchard Tracts

1909-1948 8 Robertv1lle Orchards 19 Appleton

9 Simcoe Orchard Tracts 20 North Dalles Fruit & Garden Tracts

10 Sunnydale Orchards 21 Mountain View Home Acres

S Vice. l980

Figure 2. Land parcelization activ~ty, 1909-1948.

N
u.
l 26
TABLE I
LAND PARCELIZATION ACTIVITY
1909 - 1948
(Primarily five and ten acre tracts)
GENERAL
PLAT NAME DATE LOCATION

Fruit Home Colony 1909 Trout Lake

Inglenook Fruit Farm 1909 Cliffs

Goodnoe Fruit Farm 1909 Goodnoe Hills

Nutland Hills Orchard Lands 1909 Goodnoe Hills

Maryhill 1909 Maryhill

Alderdale Tracts 1909-10 Alderdale

Cliffs 1909-10 Cliffs

Robertville Orchards 1909 Snowden

Simcoe Orchard Tracts 1910 Goldendale

Sunnydale Orchards 1910 Goodnoe Hills

Home Seekers Orchard Lands 1910 Goodnoe Hills

Sundale Orchard Lands 1910 Sundale

Mountain View Orchard Tracts 1910 Goldendale

Klickitat Orchard Tracts 1910 Goldendale

Grand Dalles Orchard Tracts 1911 Dallesport

Bertha-N Orchard Homes 1911 Appleton

Maryhill Land Company 1912 Maryhill

Lyle-Klickitat Orchard Tracts 1912 Lyle

Appleton 1912 Appleton

North Dalles Fruit & Garden Tracts 1930 Dallesport

Mountain View Hom~ Acres 1948 Glenwood

from: Recorded Plats of the Klickitat

County Auditor's Office
 CHAPTER III

, LEGAL ASPECTS OF RANGE USE

The man who comes to make a home

In this far Western· Land
For capital brings honest heart,
And brawny, willing hands,
But little more has he in store ...

Should laws be made the rich to aid

Which makes the poor man poorer?
That law is blest above the rest,
Where work men's rights are surer.

Those men who borrow arguments

From stock kings and repeat them,
Should be fenced in; green things are scarce .••
Some passing cow might eat them.

Dayton Columbia Chronicle,

May 15, 1880
(as reported in Oliphant, 330)

RESTRICTING THE OPEN RANGE

The face-off between Klickitat County stockmen and farm-

ers was in no way unique. In fact, it was a situation as old

as the eountry itself. Ever since the earliest colonial set-

tlements the situation had existed. 1 The stockmen and settlers

of Klickitat County were but "repeating a process which had

transformed economic life on American frontiers from earliest

times" (Oliphant, 319).

1
For a discussion of the history of livestock grazing
in America, see Jordan (1972, 1977). ·
- ·t-i<'li-_"ll _ _ _S-l'<lli< _ _ _ _ ...,. ...-»".If-ii- ..... ~ii' ~ 'i!'-m~ -<-tt--~"° . " _. ., ., -'I-'· It . . . . . . . ,,. .... ..,. ....
....... ~- '"'" _._.............. "' ..... .....~ +IR'"

28
Throughout the era of advancing settlements local laws or

customs had given an·:." implied license" to stockmen of the fron-

tier to graze livestock upon all unenclosed lands, whether pub-

licly or privately owned. Unenclosed America had been a "public

common" on which livestock could graze. But as the process of

settlement continued and where cultivation became more import-

ant than livestock raising, occupational conflicts arose as

noted.

These conflicts, incidentally, were often more intense

where timber (to build fences} was scarce and costly (Oliphant,

319). Farmers in the lower Klickitat prairie, for instance,

proposed in the early 1870's to form a "joint fence company"

to reduce the costs of fencing {Meinig, 300).

Throughout the country where such conflicts arose the

farmers demanded that the long standing custom of "public

common" be replaced by a principle of law derived from England

that:

Every man must restrain his stock within his own

grounds, and if he does not do so, and they get upon
the unclosed grounds of his neighbors, it is a tres-
pass for which their owner is responsible (Buford v.
Houtz, 133 u. s. 326, 1890).

In 1890, the U. S. Supreme Court declared that this prin-

ciple had not prevailed during the settlement of the U. s.

because it would have been "ill-adapted to the nature and

condj_tion of the country at that time." (Buford u. Houtz,

326). The Court continued that:

In this country, in the progress of settlement, the

principle that a man was bound to keep his cattle con-
fined within his own grounds or else would be liable
for their trespass upon the unenclosed grounds of his
neighbors was never adopted or recognized as the law
 29
.of the. co\mtry, except as· .it might refer to animals
known to be dangerous.

The Court did, however, note t~at states could legisla-

tively enact laws for the modification by popular vote of this

"custom of nearly a hundred years.H Such laws would permit

certain counties or parts of the state, or the

whole of the· state, by a vote of the people within
such sub-division, to determine whether cattle shall
longer be permitted to run at large ~nd the owners
of the soil compelled to rely upon fences for pro-
tection, or whether the cattle owner shall keep them
confined, and in that manner protect his neighbor
without the necessity on the part.of the latter of
relying upon fences (Buford v. Houtz, 329).

The establishment of. such "herd law" or fence law legis-

lation was a fiercely debated issue in Klickitat County and all

of eastern Washington Territory in 1879. The Territorial

legislature found that the most politically expedient way to

deal with the issue was to refer it to the people on a refer-

endum ballot. Thus, on November 13, 1879 it passed an act

"to ascertain the wishes of the people in certain counties

[Walla Walla, Columbia, Whitman, Spokane, Stevens, Yakima and

Klickitat] in regard to the fence law," and that the question

be submitted to the voters in the November 1880 general

election. The results were to be given to. "each member elect-

ed to the legislative assembly as a guide for future legis-

lation in regard to fence laws in their respective counties"

. . - 1
(Laws of Washington Territory, 1879, 234-235).

The fence law measure was resoundingly defeated in all

the counties {Oliphant, 333) but the issue remained.

1
For a detailed discussion of the herd law debate in
Washington Territory, see Oliphant (321-336) •
 - - - ->~·""'!-""' - ... _., .I!" ...........

"'' -~........ ,~ t'""'~ -- ~ ~~~.-....~~ .....

-~,;."!-"l""l!"'O..- ........ ~----"'".,,.~ ,>r

. 30
Agitation for herd law continued until the territorial legis-

lative assembly approved on November 27, 1883 a law to "Provide

for a Herd Law." This law, modeled after those used in several

other western states, made the owners of livestock running at

large liable for trespass of such animals upon cultivated

lands b~t restricted the application of the law to counties

that voted to enact the law. There is, however, no record

that the law was ever adopted by any county (Oliphant, 335-

336; Laws of Washington, 1883, 55-56). Futhermore, the

Supreme Court of Washington declared in 1887 that no law in

the Territory required livestock to be fenced (Oliphant 336;

Timm and Forck v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, 3 Wash.

Territory, Rep. 299, 1887)·.

Oliphant speculates that the reasons the law was not used

were that the petition requirements to put the issue before

county voters were a deterrent and that the problem of expen-

sive fencing in untimbered areas was being solved by the use

of barbed wire by the farmers.

Accordingly, it may be that the "poor farmer's" per-

ception of the advantages accruing to him by having
relat~vely inexpensive barbed-wire fences enclosing
cultivated fields in which after harvest, his own live-
stock would find rich grazing, persuaded him to be-
lieve that justice did not move and have its being
in a no fence law (Oliphant, 336).

The barbed wire fence, then, was both boon and bane for

the stockman; for it relieved the pressure for herd laws, yet

it aided in the futher settlement and division of rangeland.

It was in 1911 that the State of Washington enacted an

enabling law (amended in 1937) regarding herd laws, or "stock

p ~!!" _ _ _ .. _ _ --·-""'-"*-'k ~
,.. - .,....,._ 'II * ,,.._'W' . . ~-~·~~·-<t- ~

31
restricted areas." This law authorized the counties to estab-

lish stock restricted areas "of not less than two square miles."

The law then says that "All territory not so· designated shall

be range area, in which it shall be lawful to permit livestock

to run at large: (16.24.010, Revised Code of Washington [RCW]}.

A review of court decisions show the intent of the law:

Though owners of cattle have a fundamental and his-

toric right to use of highways, this right does not
excuse the owner of the cattle from the obligation
of due care (Green v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Company
(1961) 158 Washington Dec. 305, 362, P. 2nd, 593).

RCW 16.24.010 and .065 ..• make it unlawful to permit

livestock to run at large or to permit livestock to
stray upon a public highway in a stock restricted
area {Misterek, v. Washington Mineral ·Products, Inc.
(1975) 85 WN. 2d 166, 531 P2d 805).

An owner of cattle is obligated to keep.-them.out

of a tract of land included in herd law district,
even though there is no fence around the tract and
when his cattle stray upon that tract, he is respon~
sible to its owners for reasonable value of its use
and occupation (MacKenzie-Richardson, Inc. v. Albert
(1954) 45 Wn2d 1, 272 P2d 146) .

Under this statute, there can be no liability im-

posed on an owner of cattle for their trespass on
land of another in herd law areas, unless it is
established that owner negligently or willfully
permitted cattle to run at large (Bly v. McAllister
(1961) 158 Wash Dec. 708, 364 P2d 500).

Under this statute, motorist claiming damages from

colliding with livestock o~ a public highway in a
stock restricted area need only show the presence
of defendant's livestock on the highway ·in order to
raise a permissible inference of negligence which will
take his case to jury (Scanlan v. Smith (1965) 66 Wn
2d, 404 P2d 776).

Along with the establishment of·stock restricte.d areas

and their resultant legal responsibilities came a need.to

legally define a fence. Chapter 16.60.010 RCW defines a legal

fence in detail. The courts amplified the law:

 32
The purposes of statutes defining lawful fences ...
were to compel owners of private property to protect
their lands by lawful boundary fences against stock
ranging on the public domain (Kobayashi v. Stangeway
(1911) 64 WN 36, 116 P.461).

Fence law •.. required the owner of enclosed lands to

fenc9 only against stock lawfully at large •.. and where
the owner of stock in his own enclosure did not avail
himself of statutory provisions for the maintenance
of a division fence, the common law rule applied, and
he was liable for trespass by reason of failure to
rest~ain his stock (Kobayashi v. Strangeway (1911)
64 WN36, 116 P.461).

KLICKITAT COUNTY HERD LAWS

Klickitat County has had established stock-restricted

areas, commonly referred to as "herd law distric~s" in various

parts of the county since 1912. Stock restricted areas may be

established by the Board of County Commissioners after a pub-

lie hearing (16.24:020 RCW). In Klickitat County, the conunis-

sioners will hold a public hearing on a herd law only after a

petition is filed containing a "sufficient number" of s~gna-

tures of residents from·the affected area. (The text of

Chapter 16.24 RCW is included in the Appendix A.) A number

of herd laws have ·be~n established in Klickitat County. Table

II lists the names, dates and acreages of the herd law dis-

tricts and Figure 3 shows their location. The remainder of

the county retains an open range designation.

With liabilities placed upon the stockman within stock

restricted areas, it is understandable that the livestock

industry would oppose the establishment of such areas in

traditional grazing lands. This conflict in its current set-

. ting is discussed later in Chapters.IV and° V.

 ... ·--~-----

TABLE II
KLICKITAT COUNTY HERD LAW DISTRI~TS

REASON FOR FORMATION

HERD LAW NAME LEGAL DESCRIPTION NO. OF ACRES AND/OR VACATION OF
DATE OR REFERENCE AREA (GENERALI ZED) {APPROXIMATE) HERD LAW DISTRICT

1912 Sam Hill T2 Rl6, all of Sec. 7680 cultivated land

5 & 6; T3 Rl6, all
of Sec.25-28 & 31-36

1915 M. L. Hoisington T6 R22, all of Sec. 9600 no reason stated

1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14,
24, 25, & 36 (all);
T6 R23, Sec. 6, 7,
18, 19, 30 & 31 all
1915 J. W. King TS R22; TS R23; T4 93 square miles no reason stated
R22; T4 R23
1915 Dan Lusby· T6 R21; T6 R22 undetermined no reason stated

1915 Guy Needham T3 RlO & 11 undetermined "residential farms"

in the area

1915 J. T. Whitmore TS R21; T4 R21; undetermined no reason stated

T3 R21
1916 z. T. Dodson T6 R20, all of 1-4 lS,360 no reason stated
9-16, 21-28 & 33-36
19l.6 J. R. Shepard T3 Rl9; T3 R20 25,600 no reason stated

1917 George A. Gill T6 R23; TS R23 8320 no reason stated

w
w
 •&~---1

!
I
I
1917 A. E. Hardin T4 Rl4; T4 Rl8; 8000 no reason stated ii
T3 Rl9
l
1917 R. A. Jackson T4 Rl9, all but Sec. 20,160 no reason stated l

30, 31, 32, 29, and '

Wl/2 of 33
1917 W. A. McCredy T6 R20, Sec. S-8, 7,680 no reason stated
17-20 & 29-32

1917 Clyde Story T3 Rl6; T4 Rl6 7,680 no reason stated

1917 Oscar Wilson T3 Rl4, all of Sec. 10,240 no reason stated

9-16 & 21-28

1917 B. F. Winterstein T4 Rl6; TS Rl6; T4 undetermined no reason stated

RlS; TS RlS

1917 G. A. Wolf T3 Rl8; T3 Rl9 10,SOO no reason stated

1919 G. c. Wedgwood T4 Rl7 & 18; S,480 no reason stated

T3 Rl8

1920 Carl Witikka T3 RlS, all of Sec. 2,S60 no reason stated

10, 11, 14 & lS

1922 W. M. Campfield T3 & 4 Rl 0 & ·11 undetermined no reason stated

1923 P.P. Chamberlain TS R20 23,040 no reason stated

1923 Rachel Eversole T3 Rll, Sec. S, undetermined no reason stated

29, 32-36

1923 N. P. Mears. T3 RlO & 11 undetermined no reason stated

w
~
1923 E. E. Morgan T4 Rl4, all of Sec. 10,240 no reason stated
23-26, 35 & 36; T3
Rl4, all of Sec. 1 & 2;
T3 RlS, all of Sec. 5
& 6; T4 RlS, all of Sec.
18 & 19 and 29-32

1929 w. H. Robertson T4 Rl3, Sl/2 of 24, 1,360 no reason stated

Sl/2 Nl/2 of 24, all
of Sec 23, Sl/2 of
Sec. 22

1946 F. H. Turk White Salmon River undetermined protect cultivated

Valley North of Husum and residential land
from livestock
1948 Crofton Prairie TS RlS; T4 Rl5 undetermined no reason stated
:

1959 Parts of Gill, Lusby, T4 R23; TS R23; T4 undetermined herd law a detriment
King Vacated R22; TS R22; T6 R22 to the area
1959 George A. Gill T6 R23, Sec. 2-4, 8,320 herd law served no
Vacated 9-15 and 22-24 useful purpose

1959 Sam Hill Vacated T2 Rl6, all of Sec. 7,680 herd law no longer
5 & 6; T3 Rl6, all necessary or proper
of Sec~25-28 & 31-36

1961 Harold Honeycutt T3 Rll, all of Sec. 3,200 residential area

3 t 4 f 8 f 9 & 10 j (originai request
T4 Rll, all of Sec. larger than establish-
33 & 34 ed area)

1964 W.H. Robertson T4 Rl3, part of Sec. 2,640 residential area

Extension 24, Sl/2 of Sec. 13
w
Ul
1966 McGregor Triangle Co. T3 Rl7, S of State undetermined conunercial purposes
Highway 12 (Corps of Engineers)

1967 Shepard
J •. R. T3 R20, all of 1,280 owner desired open
(part of) Vacated Sec. 20 & 2l range

1974 Lyle Herd Law T3 Rll & 12 undetermined residential area and
District livestock was becoming
a traffic hazard

1976 Wish ram T2 RlS, Sec. 17 & 18 undetermined residential area

Source: Klickitat County Commissioners' Journals

w
0)
z
co
....

z
<(
~
<(
~
(/)

z
v
....

HERD LAW DISTRICTS

Existing Herd Law Districts ~

MllES

S Vice, 1980

Figure 3. Herd law districts.

Vo>
......:i
 38
As noted in Table I~ the major stated reason for the

establishment of herd law districts is for the protection

of cultivated and residential areas. Some districts were

actually vacated after they were determined to be more valu-

able as range land than as cultivated land. A comparison of

figures 3 and 4 reveals that the existing herd laws "cover"

most of the oultivated and residential areas· of the county.

However, many of the most recent herd law proposals are

not in suburban or cultivated areas. Rather, they cover areas

of recent (since 1970) land parcelization activity. Figure 5

shows the areas of major land parcelization activity and. the

proposed herd laws currently under consideration. ·

Herd laws remain a controversial subject within Klickitat

County. Recent petitions for herd laws submitted to the

County Conunissioners show a majority of the signers to be new

residents and/or purchasers of small tracts of land within

the marginal scrub and timberlands long valuable only as range.

This recent parcelization of rangeland will be discussed later

in this paper. It is important here only that the establish-

ment of stock restricted areas remains a viable legal land

use tool or instnument of change.

GRAZING LEASES

With the rapid increase in private ownership of land

within Klickitat County in the late 1890's and early 1900's,

via homesteading, cattlemen began to realize that it would

be impossible to acquire fee title to eno~gh land to adequat-

ely supply the needs of large herds of cattle. And with the
 R12E R22E

Coniferous Forest
•
D Culti\· ated
PRESENT AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
~ Range
~

MILES

S Vice. 1980

Figure 4. Present agricultural land use.

V.)
\0
 Existing Districts

D Proposed Districts
HERD LAW DISTRICTS AND PARCEUZATION
~ Recent Parcelization Activity
~

MILES

S Vice. 1980

Figure 5. Existing and proposed herd law districts and major recent parcelizationiactivity.

~
 ._.,.......,., ................ .....,.
,. ._,..._ ~~-~ ~-,,.,,.,._.., ~

41
disappearance of "free range" they were forced to graze avail-

able state and federal lands, and lease grazing lands from

surrounding property owners. The use of grazing leases was

well established by 1900. Little information is available

regarding early grazing leases, othe~ than the stories of the

old-timers, since it was rare indeed that such leases were

recorded by the County Auditor, let alone written.

It remains the tradition locally that most .grazing leases

on private p~operty are oral agreements, made annually between

parties. Occasionally "agricultural leases" may be obtained

in writing, usually in five year lease periods, that allow

any agricultural use (livestock grazing, cultivation, etc.)

However, these agreements are rarely recorded either (Boardman

interview) .

Thus it is nearly impossible to ascertain detailed ~ata

on land leased for grazing. However, the survey of ranchers

indicates that it is common today for individual ranchers to

lease up to several thousand acres of land.

Records of grazing leases upon state and federal land

are available, at least since the establishment of state and

1
federal regulation of grazing on public lands. The (Federal)

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and corresponding state regulations

carefully manage grazing to prevent over-grazing and environ-

2
mental damage (Stoddard,95). Grazing leases on state

1
A computer print-out of the State Department of Natural
Resources grazing lease data is available (See App8ndix C) .
2
For a detailed account of grazin~-o~the-public -domain,
see Foss (1960) and Cale£ (1960).
! -

42
Department of Natural Resources {DNR) lands are carefully

regulated as to grazing management techniques as are the legal

aspects of such contracts (State of Washington Department of

Natural Resources [DNR], n.d., 4~16). It is interesting

to note, however, that whereas state lease regulations are

quite specific, individual leases tend to be general in nat-

ure as to range use. For instance, Section 8, "Operations of

Premises" of the standard DNR grazing lease reads "This land

shall be managed in husband-like manner according to standards

acceptable to the industry" (Appendix B).

LAND USE REGULATIONS

Land use laws, such as zoning and subdivision standards,

are the latest regulations of concern to users of rangeland.

Zoning laws in Klickitat County were adopted in 1969 and are

currently (1979) being revised. Zoning standards for the

entire rural portion of the county limit land use to those

of single family residential and agricultural types. The min-

imum lot size allowed is approximately one-half acre (20,000

square feet) (Klickitat County Zoni~g Ordinance, 7).

The current controversy over zoning and its potential effects

on rangeland are discussed below.

Short subdivision (or "short plat") and subdivision reg-

ulations control the division of land into smaller parcels. 1

1
The Zoning Ordinance regulates minimum·lot size (five
acre, twenty acre, etc.). The Short Plat and Subdivision
Ordinance regulate the number of parcels that may be created.
Short Plat lots in Klickitat County average substantially
larger· (five, ten or twenty acre parcels) than subdivision
lots (one, two or five acre parcels).
 43
The short plat ordinance regulates divisions of less than

five or more parcels. The latter was adopted in 1970, the

former in 1974. Both are based upon state laws which mandate

such regulation (Klickitat County Ordinance Number 81970,

1970, pp. 2-3; Klickitat County Ordinance Number 81274, 1974; ·

Revised as Ordinance Number 5158, 1978, pp. 1-2). Like zon-

ing, subdivision regulations are central to the current range

use conflict.
-.
~-~---~-~-"""-1~

CHAPTER IV

CONTEMPORARY LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS IN KLICKITAT COUNTY

"It will make valuable cattle ranges"

Theodore Winthrop, 1853
The livestock industry has remained, throughout thick

and thin, an important part of the economy of Klickitat County

since· pioneer days. Tables III through VIII and Figures 6

through 8 reflect this importance. Note that recorded numbers

of livestock in these tables reflect on farm totals. Range

cattle, which in the early days vastly outnumbered the farm

animals, were rarely counted. What is actually reflected in

these tables is the establishment of the farm, and later ranch-

stead-style of livestock raising· as homesteaders and farmers

increased their herds.

Note, too, the overall decline in acreage and number of

farms/ranches but the increase·in average, farm size and total

numbers of cattle. This indicates consolidation of farms.

Also, the total acreage in available grazing land is decreas-

ing. Klickitat, Yakima, Kittitas, (and later Okanogan) conne-

ies have been considered the "beef producing center of the

state" since the 1920's. Klickitat County's importance in

relation to the other counties diminished somewhat during the

late 1950's and early 1960's. However, the overall change is

slight; from a high of 13.3 percent of the-total cattle in

 - I

TABLE III
KLICKITAT·COUNTY AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, 1950-1974

ITEM 195~ 1954 ~ 1964 ~ !21.i

No. of farms 907 796 741 656 614 463
Approx. land area in county 1,219,2001
Propor.tion in farms nr 77 .1 '78.8 77.1 63.8 64.4
land in farms (acres) 904,154 943,068 960 I 614 939,884 778,948 786,736
ave. size farm (acres) 996.9 1,184.8· 1,296.4 1,432.8 1,268.6 l,699
No. of farms reporting
cropland used for pasture 371 364 332 268 311 226
Cropland used for pasture
(acres) 27,146. 21,744 23,757 21,310 31, 84 3 27,819
No. of Farms reporting
Woodland pasture 413 377 333 332 161 89
Woodland pasture (acres) nr 295,003 313,031 '267,535 162,652 100,644
No. of farms reporting
other pastures 396 397 346 403 nr nr
Other pasture (acres) 416,761 399,517 394,578 454,505 359,602 nr
Farms by size - 500
to 999 acres 125 116 107 90 66 nr
Farms by size - over
1,000 acres 204 217 199 76 (lll) 78 (109) nr
Farms by size - over
2,000 acres nr nr 55 35 31 nr
No. of livestock farms
(excluding dairy & poultry) 175 150 138 158 nr nr
No. of cattl~ and calves 28,083 33,607 32,508 33,310 31,891 35,277
No. of farms with sheep. ' lambs 78 131 124 57 62 37
No. of sheep and lambs 18,112 14 I 802 12,827 7,628 J,479 3,014
Average value per farm of land
and buildings ($) nr 34,038 50,432 73,548 111, 380 234,947
Average value per farm per acre ($) nr 32. 74 4842 51. 74 88.00 138.00

l. hr = not reported
Source: u. s. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ~ensus of Agriculture (Washington State)
1950-1974 '·.
ii::..
U1
 46

TABLE IV

KLICKITAT COUNTY RANGE/PASTURE, 1969-1974*

ITEM 1969 1974

Woodland Pastured
Number of farms 161 89
Total acres 162,652 100,644

Cropland Used for Pasture/Grazing

Only
Number of farms 311 226
Total acres 31,843 27,819

Pastureland Other than Cropland

and Woodland
Number of 'tf arms 221 174
Total acres 338,777 393,258

Total
Number of f arrns 693** 489**
Acres 533,272 521,721

*Previous c~nsuses did not make this breakdown

**Cumulative of farms reporting. Farms may report more than ·

one category.

Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

1974 Census of Agriculture.
 -1'!'
, ·--------.-~·-- ~-···~·· .,,.
•t--. - ~ ... "' +-'l!!t< - - 'M° '!' "<'... 11'-i- - !!"
- 1'-0!- -</!""1" '!!'!!!" +f+""'i' 'I" L ...

47

TABLE V

NUMBER OF CATTLE & CALVES ON FARMS IN KLICKITAT COUNTY

1850-1974

DATE NUMBER REMARKS

1860 2,674
1870 3,359
1880 14,135 Total·on Farms & Range in
Yakima, ·Kittitas and Klickitat
counties = 55,098 (Range =
17,787)
1890 11,069 Total on Farms & Range in
Yakima, Kittitas .and Klickitat
counties = 37,682 ~(% change =
46%)
1900 9,798
1910 8,551
1920 15,419 Along with Yakima, Kittitas
and Okanogan.counties consid-
ered the "beef producing
center of the state. Note
that no attempt was made to
accurately.count range animals
until the 1920 census.
1925 15,076
1930 16,448
1935 23,451
1940 21,747
1945 25,794
1950 28,083
1954 33;.607
1959 32,508
1964 37,010
1969 33,057
1974· 35,277
Source: Washington State Department.of Agriculture, 1967,
28-46·.
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1974.
 TABLE VI

KLICKITAT, KITTITAS, YAKIMA & OKANOGAN COUNTY CATTLE 1945-1974

1945 1950 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974·
- - - - - - - -
Klickitat 25,794 28,083 33,607 32,508 37,010 33,057 35,277
Kittitas 32,978 36,830 63,496 63,656 75,667 64,185 56,999
Yakima . 82,797 90,788 123,456 131,507 173,421 147,575 140,791
Okanogan 57,041 54,720 -~344 72,474 77,569 62,496 63,550
Totals 198,610 210,421 291,403 300,145 363,669 307,313 296,617

Source: Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1967, Washington Livestock, p. 32

,i::.
00
 ·-~---· ----~· ·---~--··H·---~~--·--~-----·-·-~·--·~ .

49

NUMBER OF CATTLE &CALVES

ON FARMS IN KLICKITAT COUNTY,
35,000' 1860·1974

30,000 j

25,000

en
w
_,
:::t 20,000
<(
0
c
z<(
_,
w
f:<(
0 15,000
LL.
0
cc
w
IXI
~
:::::>
z

10,000 '

5,000

1.000
0 0 0
g ....,.
~
0 0 0
~
IO
.,....
~... en,_""' O>....
0 ~ en
~....
IO CJ)
c.o co a;,_
-
0)
~
("')

-
C\I I() IO
co
.... C\I en ~
....co co
.,... CX)
..- .... ....
O> O>
,... .... ~ ,..
O> O> ,_.
CJ)

K. Straiton-Gibbs CENSUS DATE

Figure 6. Number of cattle ~nd calves on farms in Klickitat County, 1860-1974.

·~'
 50
these counties during 1950 to 11.9 percent in 1974. The low

point during these years was 10.1 percent in 1964 (Figure 7,

Table VIII).

May (10) summarizes what has happened:

Compared to the pioneer stockmen whose herds num-

bered thousands and roamed wherever the bunchgrass
provided the best of feed, Klickitat County cattle-
men of modern times could only be regarded as small
operators.

Yet the cattlemen of today do a far better job

under more restrictive circumstances than would
have been thought possible in the old days. And
although the diversified operations of most of them
preclude specialization in cattle production to the
extent practiced elsewhere, and in this county in
former times, a few have qualified as cattlemen in
a true sense.

May's article and Klickitat County Public Utility Dis-

trict (1966) provided the range use backdrop of the recent

past for the study of the current situation. Roger Pond,

Klickitat County Extension Agent, (Washington State Extension

Service), provided current information.

In eastern Klickitat County one of the largest livestock

operations is owned by Clarence McBride. The McBride cattle

ranged over 22,000 acres in 1950 plus additional leased summer

pasture in the Simcoe Mountains. By 1966, the McBride herd

numbered about 1,000 head and ranged over 25,000 acres.

Figures for 1978 remain about the same.

Seventy-five miles west in the Gilmer Valley, the ·Kreps

operation ranged 320 cattle over 7,500 acres of deeded land

plus additional leased land. There, winter snows are heavy, .and

many barns and sheds are used to store hay.

A considerable part of the work of the Kreps ranch

was the raising of large quanities of hay, both at
 51

NUMEJER OF CATTLE, 1945·1974

KLLCKITAT, KITTITAS, YAKIMA & OKANOGAN COUNTJES

180

170

160

150

140

130
5'
~ 120
en
:::r
0
J: 110·
I::.
_,
w
s
0
u..
100

0
a: 90
w
m
~
i 80
OKANOGAN
70
KITTITAS
60

50

40
KLICKITAT
30

20
-q-
~
0 Ct.>
Ct.>
,_
U')
C>
,_
U')
C>
T'""
~
,_ ~,_ . 8
K. Strallon-(libbs CENSUS DATE

Figure 7. Number of cattle, 1945-1974; Klickitat, Kittitas, Yakima, and Okanogan Counties.
- +-~--~- -- -:t-"11+"' ...... ~'1!71'- ~-.~~l:!!' .. ,...... ~
~ . . . - - - - ·----,,,..,,. .. ~·+ ._...._ ~
* \!'-.,. "tt- .. _ ... _ _ _ " _... iJ ...~ ... ,... ..... ~ - - i- .. ,,._ .,. .,,,

52
the ranch and on tracts in the Glenwood Valley, for
winter feed. Feeding that hay was another consider-
able task,· followed by spring calving, summer forag-
ing in the timberland pastures and round-up in the
fall. In earliest times, Kreps drove mature animals
to Bingen for shipment. Since the 1940's they have
b~en trucked to market from the ranch (May, 10).

Both remain today as examples of Klickitat County r~nch oper-

ations.

The 1966 PUD report noted that the Matsen ranch north-

west of Bickleton moved its 100 head of Angus to irrigated

pastures in Glenwood in the summer. The bulls and calves were

wintered at the home place, while the cows were wintered at the

Six Prong ranch and the heifers at the Glade ranch. The Glen-

wood pastures are no longer used (Figure 9}.

The Crocker cattle operation is located near Centerville

but transports its herd to Glenwood for summer grazing. The

Schusters provide spring feeding at the home ranch near

Goldendale, and formerly shipped the herd to Ellensburg in May

to rented pasture; Glenwood pastures are used now.

The O. P. Kreps ranch included 2,500 acres of deeded

land and another 25,000 leased acres. The leased acreage in-

eluded federal, state and timber company land. Federal graz-

ing permits had been held for fifty years. It is located at

Laurel.

The Lone Pine Ranch was ~nother example of summer feed-

ing in the Glenwood Valley and wintering at the home place at

.Horseshoe Bend. Part of the herd grazed 17,000 acres of St.

Regis Paper Company and DNR land on the slopes of M~. Adams.

The rest were summered at Glenwood. However, the rancher's

cattle operation was discontinued in the early 1970's.

 ~· ... +-"f'#-1'·•+ _ ... "'""" . . . . '!!- "tt ·t '!-'I ... ~ -t"-
Tm --·~~--.-~-~··~·-·-~ ~r-~~.---w~-·~~~··-• ·-•~• ..., .. ,. _.,,.~<'1ttt"i4 'ii~ ---....--i'"!t''l"--.J;- ~ ... ~

I
~

53
The 8,000 sheep located in Klickitat County a~cording

to the 1964 Census of Agriculture (Figure 8, Tables VI and

VII) were only a fraction of the 1930 high of almost 72,000

head. Yet several rather large sheep operations remained at

the time of the 1966 report. The 2,000 sheep of the Holwegner

ranch grazed over 200,000 acres of Yakima Indian Reservation

and National Forest Service Land. In 1966 eight to ten bands

of sheep grazed acres where sixty bands roamed years ago. The

Klickitat County PUD report (1966, 6) noted that "The Holweg-

ners have one of the last truly-range operations for sheep in

the Northwest." Another sheep operation of the middle 1960's

was the Seeley ranch which moved its thousand head from

Roosevelt to Trout Lake. "At -that time--the sheep are moved on

the 100 m~le drive~ .. averaging some ten miles per day." 1968

was the last year for this operation because the reservoir of

the new John Day Dam covered a large part of the spring graze.

Other sheep .operations included the Jaekel ranch at

Wishram which moved its 2~00 head to Mt. Adams annually, on a

drive that took "two herders, four dogs, and two pack trains

with five horses to each train" (PUD, 1966, 7). ·Whe Norris

ranch near ·Goldendale also kept a small-flock.

Figure 9 portrays these and other major livestock

operators' movements during the 1950-60's. As the map in-

dicates, summer grazing areas prevail further north '(and at a

higher altitude) than winter pastures. Generalized movement

then is from south to north and return. The map also shows

that some livestock... ac_tually_ leaves.-.the C.ounty for a time; to

 54 .

TABLE VII
SHEEP ON FARMS IN KLICKITAT COUNTY, 1870-1974

DATE NUMBER DATE NUMBER

- -
1870 22 1940 52,532
1880 46,051 1945 13,716
1890 44,080 1950 18;112
1900 136,270 1954 14,907
r
1910 48,968 1959 12,827
1920 48,904 1964 7,761
1925 46,237 1969 4,201
1930 71,728 1974 3,014
1935 52,532

Source: Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1967,

pp. 142-144;

U. S. Department of Commerce, 1974 9 Census of

Agriculture.
1~ ---~· ··- ....--·· ·-
l

55

TABLE VIII

SHEEP ON FARMS IN YAKIMA AND KLICKITAT COUNTIES

1880-1900

DATE NUMBER

1880 74,000
1890 112,000
1900 500,000 (includes Kittitas County)

· Source: Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1967,

pp. 142-144;
u. S. Department of Commerce, 1974 Census of
Agriculture.
 56

SHEEP ON FARMS IN KLICKITAT COUNTY, 1870,.1974

140

130

120

110

100

90

0 80
z
<
(f)
::::>
0
I 70
I::.
a.
w
w
:c
60
"'
LL.
0
a:
w
m
::E 50
:::>
z
40

30

20

10

0
0
f2 0
<X> O>
0
0
0
c;;
0
C\I
LO
C\I
0
C")
LO
C")
0
'<:I' ~
0
LO
'<:I'
LO
0)
LO
'<:I'
-<O
O>
co '<:I'
,..._
~ <X>
.,... <X>
.,... O>
.,... .,... .,...
O> O>
,.... O>
,.... ,.
O> O>
,.... O>
,..... O>
.,... O>
,..... O>
.,... ....
O> O>
.,... O>
......

CENSUS DATE
K. Stratton-Gibbs

Figure 8. Sheep on farms in Klickitat County, 1870-1974.

 R10E R12E R20E R22E
R14E I I R16E • t~ I R18E
IHOLWEGNER
D ...... Y~l{IMA .. To·s:m~;. M~n~...
1. tbUrtf~ r . ·_· ... II
z
cg. CD
..... m
z
-t
0
z
(')
0
c
z
-t
-<

..,.z
I-

Sheep
Cattle

TYPICAL LIVESTOCK MOVEMENTS, 1950's & 1960's Winter Range

•
0 Summer Range
~
MILES
Home ranchers· names are shown at termini

S Vice. 1980

Figure 9. Typical livestock movements, 1950's-1960's.

v.
-....)
 58
the Simcoe Mountains, "The Glade," Yakima and even Ellensburg.

In 1979, similar cattle operations survive, but none of

the sheep operators mentioned remain. Sheep now in the county

are located within diversified farms rather than in major sheep

operations. The last major sheep operation, the Imrie ranch,

sold out its flock in 1973 noting "synthetics, coyotes, and

lack of sununer range" as reasons for the demise of the sheep

industry in Klickitat County (Goldendale Sentinel, March 24,

1977).

Currently, the relatively small amount of federal

(National Forest) land within the county is still.being used

for grazing (Table IX). Two of the three allotment areas are

reserved for cattle, the third for sheep. An interesting con-

cept for the sheep grazing there is the "transitory grazing"

technique used whereby bands of sheep move from clear cut to

clear cut for forage. At one time up to 15,000 head of sheep

alone grazed the national forest area. Now the number is

limited to several hundred. (Bull interview; Bush, 1976, 7).

The increase in total use depicted in Table IX indicates a

revision of the estimated grazing capacity of each allotment

area. Estimates are made annually (Bush, 76).

The U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife's Con-

boy National Wildlife Refuge allows leased grazing on portions

of its 10,000 acres (Cairns, 1966, 7). Minor amounts of

other federal land (Bureau of Land Management, Bonneville

Power Administration) may be grazed. However, the Yakima In-

dian Reservation land within Klickitat County provides over

four million acres of open range with a significant amount

 . ~ ·~-- ...... -... ... ..................... ----- ... ...... ......... ............ ... __ --- ........ - - - - - -&•• • --~--.·· -

TABLE IX

MT. ADAMS GRAZING PROGRAM (NATIONAL FOREST)

ALLOTMENT 1975 1976

EWES & COWS_&_ ANIMAL/SHEEP EWES & COWS_&_ ANIMAL/SHEEP
LAMBS CALVES MONTHS LAMBS CALVES MONTHS

Twin Buttes 2,800 9,730 3,000 11,585

Ice Caves 70 93 120 420

Mt. Adams 325 650 415 830

TOTAL USE 2,800 395 10,473 3,000 535 12,835

Source: Bus.h (1976)

U1
\D
 60

leased to non-Indian cattle and sheep ranchers. Thus, the

concept of "multiple-use" land, most commonly combining timber

1
production and grazing, is well established in the County.

dh public and privately leased timber areas, grazing has for

years been an acceptable technique. However, recent concern

by certain timber companies over the effect of browsing upon

2
tree establishment and growth may lead to further reduction

in available range as grazing leases for timber company lands

are retracted or not renewed.

Agricultural census statistics and local agricultural

agencies make clear that the livestock industry in Klickitat

County is still active and economically important. But it is

important to note that the majority of livestock operations

are now part of diversified ranch-farm units, where live-

stock and crop production mix and, in fact, complement each

other. References above to hay production and use of ·irri-

gated pasture land confirm this. The County Extension Agent

estimates that there are "iess than a dozen 'full time' ca_t-

tle operations" left in the County. No specifically sheep

operation remains. Nevertheless, leased range land remains

important to the remaining few cattle operations as well as

to the diversified farms .

.Ericksen (39) notes there have been three major stages

in the development of the livestock industry: (1) early

1
For information on range multiple use management, see
Cooperative Extension Service, 1975, and Stoddart, 1975.
2
For discussion of this concern, see Stoddart
(400-403).
 61
grazing (evident in Klickitat County between 1858 and the

early 1900's), (2) ranch production (important from the 1930's

to the 1950's), and (3) livestock production in conjunction

with cropping, which is the common operation of. today.

 CHAPTER V

RECENT LAND CONVERSION AND THE CURRENT CONFLICT

There are nearly 2.3 billion acres of land in the

United States ... We do not even have a precise count
of the number of private landowners ... Recently,
rural recreation or second homes have been growing
in importance and have generated additional parcels.
These are mostly owner-used, many in rural areas
(Boxley, 2) .

LAND PARCELIZATION

Since 1970 the County had experienced a relatively

rapid increase in land parcelization in the rural parts of the

county. While state population estimates show only a slow

increase up until 1976, and a more pronounced increase in

1977 (Table X), County Planning Department statistics show

a significant amount of parcelization since 1970, and espe-

cially since 1974 when the registration of short plats (see

p.42}became mandatory by state law for division of land into

two, three, or four parcels (Klickitat County Planning Depart-

ment, 1) .

Table XI indicates that over 1,600 lots, twenty acres

in size or smaller have been created since 1970. This ffilgure

does not include a significant number of land divisions not

detected due to sales by unrecorded contract or other means

which are not officially filed. Another County study

(Klickitat County Regional Planning Council, 4) states

 63

TABLE X

KLICKITAT COUNTY POPULATION, 1970-1977,

AND PERCENT CHANGE

TOTAL UNINCORPORATED

1970 12,138 7,398

1971 12,700 7,369

1972 12,900 7,320

1913·· 12,900 7,316

1974 12,800 7,161

1975 13,000 7,453

1976 13,200 7,596

1977 13,900 8,159

TOTAL CHANGE UNINCORPORATED CHANGE·

. 1970-77 1,762 (14.5%) 761 (10.3%)

Source: ·Washington State Office of Program Planning and

Fiscal Management, April 1, 1977, Official State Population
Estimates.
 64

TABLE XI

KLICKITAT COUNTY LAND PARCELIZATION

1974-1978*

SUBDIVISIONS

LOTS AVERAGE SIZE (ACRES)

Lots Filed 622 3.25

Lots ¥et to be Filed 664 2.9

Total All Lots 1286 3.1

SHORT PLATS

Approved 137 Recorded 114

Pending 18 Denied/Withdrawn 17

Approximate Number of Lots Created 438

Approximate Number Recorded 365

Approximate Number Pending 58

*As of February, 1978

Source: Klickitat County Planning Department

 65
that of these parcelizations fifty-seven percent are in for-

est areas, thirty percent are in agricultural areas and sev-

enty-six percent are in grazing areas. Figure 5 shows the

location of these parcelizations, and more specifically shows

the relationship between herd law districts, open range, and

major areas of parcelization.

It should be noted that there are basically two types

of parcelization involved· in the issue at hand. A number of

subdivisions have been developed after obtaining (in most

cases) official and legal county approval via Planning Commis-

sion and County Commissioner action. These subdivisions are

characteristically located at some distance from basic ser-

vices and are promoted as recreational developments. This

type of development is referred to by Campbell (1969, 7) as

the "remote subdivision" and by Weber (9) as the ~.'isolated

subdivision," either term describes the physical location rel-

ative to established County residential areas.

Timber Valley, Oak Knoll, and Bridlewood Meadows, (see

Figure ;3) are typical examplfiSOf such platted areas in Klick-

itat County. Lot sizes average between two and three acres,

services are minimal, access is by gravel county road. These

three subdivisions will be referred to later.

The other major type of parcelization involved in the

matter at hand is the "short plat," which is a division of a

parcel of land into two, three or four lots, under twenty

acres in size. It is a common type of transaction for pri-

vate property owners and local real estate agents in selling small

tracts of land. Short plats have been regulated in the County

 66
only since 1974 (when mandated by the state) . Short plat app-

roval is an administrative action by the County Planning Dir-

ector and requirements and standards are much less stringent

than for subdivisions (no land survey is required, for instance).

Accurate records of such parcelization are nearly impossible

to establish because many sales are consum~ated as unrecorded

contracts, providing no indication of sale until completion of

the contract and award of the deed, or a payment of exise tax,

or some other action alerts the county to the parcelization.

While subdivisions, even remote ones, by their very

nature provide a cluster of development, short plats are scat-

tered hither and yon among larger tracts of land. providing an

even wider impact upon the rural setting. These impacts will

be explored later.

Division of land in parcels over twenty acres in size

and subdivision development· in existing generally residential

areas are not included herein since they do not particularly

or directly involve or threaten the livestock industry or the

traditional rural environment.

It is interesting that during oil shortage/energy crisis

of 1974 {and currently) little change was evident in land

partition activity. Although sales of recreational vehicles

slowed and leisure activity-oriented travel decreased, rec-

reation land sales remained ·strong in Klickitat County. In

fact, K~ickitat County had the highest percent of increase in

land sales of all counties in the· state. While property sales

_slowed_s:tatewide in. 1974._ to 9. l ..per.cent.,_ compared... to._ the __two

previous years, Klickitat County sales were up sixty-f01r

 67
percent (Washington State Department of Revenue, 1975). Local

real estate agents account for this by noting that land values,

like energy values, continue to increase, thus attract inves-

tors. Also, Klickitat County's location seems to be a factor.

The major recreational land sales markets for the area are

Yakima, the Tri-Cities (Richland, Pasco, Kennewick), and the

Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. Land sales agents have

promoted, evidently successfully, the idea that Klickitat

County is only a one-day, one tank-of-gas away, round trip.

Indications are, then, that people are investing in recre-

ational property closer to home, rather than the more distant

areas, such as North Central Washington and Idaho.

LAND USE CONFLICT

Large areas of the Nation are in transition from

predominantly rural, agricultural economics to some-
thing else - something not clearly foreseeable and
for which the old labels and classifications ... are
inadequate descriptors of rural landowners and uses
.•. Uses of land ... are varied, ranging from small
hobby farms and vacation homes to land held for
recreation or investment .•. The owners undoubtedly
represent a broad range of interest with respect
to services they demand from land, community ties,
rural interests and environmental concerns (Boxley, 4).

With the foregoing survey of the evolutionary land

use of the County, the established livestock industry, and

the recent influx of people and increased land parcelization

of the rural areas, attention can now be focused upon the

current socio-economic conflict based upon a radical change

in traditional land·use.

It perhaps is a continuation and last stand of the

historical battle of survival of the cattlemen, or his view.

 68
Just as the homesteaders pushe~ the cattleman from fertile

prairies into the marginal scrub land and the forest, the

"new homesteaders," rural recreation home buyers, are push-

ing the last vesti9e of the livestock herders into a corner--

a corner of fences.

Several actors are involved in this conflict. First

are the ranchers who somewhat resent the intrusion of "city

folk" into their traditional territory, especially when new-

comers agitate for herd laws, block cattle trails with "no

trespassing" signs, create havoc with four-wheel drive ve-

hicles and snowmobiles, and disregard rural traditions. Second

are the purchasers of recreation lots, often not familiar

with the open range concept and irate over "trespassing cat-

tle" and livestock-blocked roads. Third, realtors and devel-

opers varying in their attitudes toward the open rang~ but

prone to disregard the problem or side with the newcomers,

their customers. Lastly, the public officials who must con-

tend with and try to mitigate the conflict with the least

public expenditure and as little regulation as possible.

To Supplement a review of the literature on this partic-

ular problem, a sample survey technique was used in an attempt

to draw out the extent and intensity of the conflict and its

ramifications upon the county and those involved. The anal-

ysis and interpretation of this data is the subject of the

next section of this paper.

Before this analysis, however, it should be mentioned

that it is realized that Klickitat County is not unique in

 69
this problem, nor even a particularly outstanding example.

The problem is evident in many parts of the West wherever

grazing and recreation/residential land uses come in contact.

Arizona and New Mexico are notorious for remote subdivision

developments. And other localities in the Northwest such as

Central Oregon, Bonner County, Idaho, and Okanogan County,

Washington have encountered similar problems. Various stud-

ies emanating from these districts are referenced herein.

Klickitat County nevertheless provides a good study area

because of its manageable size, the current relevancy of the

problem there, and the ease of isolating the research site.

It is hoped that the following analysis will provide useful

documentation for the study of land use change in a tradi-

tional "western" setting.

 CHAPTER VI

THE SURVEY AND ITS FINDINGS

ADMINISTERING THE QUESTIONNAIRES

In order to determine the extent and intensity of the

conflict in land use in traditional open range areas of Klick-

itat County, three questionnaires were developed and adminis-

tered for ranchers, land purchasers, and real estate agents

respectively. The study area within which the population was

sampled is located in the western· part of the County (Figure

10). It was selected .because it is the area of most recent

conflict and can be easily delimited.

From County Assessor's records the major private pro-

perty owners in the area were selected. 1 From this list were

removed property owners not involved in livestock grazing.

The County Extension Agent helped materially in this deter-

mination. Twenty-five such ranchers were sent the question-

naire regarding the range/land use conflict (Appendix E-1) •

From Assessor's records and Planning Department files

was obtained a list of purchasers of tracts twenty acres in

size or less since 1974 in the survey area. One hundred

1
originally the names of all property owners holding
over 200 acres were obtained. However, for purposes of the
survey only those having over 1,000 acres were contacted.
 71

R10E R13E
YAKIMA COUNTY
-""-.._./

r::z
::::>
0
u

~
z
<
~
~
<
CJ)

z·
CV)
I-

z
N
I-

STUDY AREA

MILES

S Vice. 1980

Figure 10. Study area.

 72
thirty-two such purchasers were sent questionnaires regarding

range land use conflicts. Both short plat tract purchasers

and subdivision lot purchasers (primarily Timber Valley) were

surveyed (Appendix E-2).

The third questionnaire was sent to the ten most active

real estate agents and developers in the area. 1 Nine were

local real estate agents and one was from Tacoma, Washington
2
(Appendix E- 3).

All surveys were mailed, pre-addressed and pre-stamped

in a fashion that only required folding and mailing.

Sixteen of the twenty-five rancher surveys were returned

for a sixty-four percent return. Seventy-five of the one hun-

dred thirty-two purchaser surveys were returned for 56.8 per-

cent. Seven of the ten real estate agent questionnaires, or

seventy percent were returned. Warwick and Lininger (129)

.note that completion return rates for mail quest~on-

naires of forty to fifty percent is considered good. The

authors also intimate that higher returns for mail question-

naires would indicate that the subject of the survey was of

high interest to the respondents.

1
Note that the term "Realtors" was used on the original
questionnaire. The questionnaire should have said "Real
Estate Agents" since the term "realtor" is a registered trade-
mark of the National Association of Realtors ~nd. the National
Association of Real Estate Boards and it is not known if all
those who received the questionnaire were members of these
organizations.
2
rnterestingly, however, of the nine local real estate
agents, five had established offices within the last five
years, an indication in itself of the growth in real estate
tra-asact::-ions- within the county.
 73
Every real estate agent and rancher respondent, and

most of the purchaser respondents, took advantage of the

"essay-style" questions in order to clarify or expand answers.

This too .would indic~te high interest in the topic. Thus the

mail survey can be considered successful and the information

it supplied as reliable.

In addition to the mail questionnaires, a number of per-

sonal interviews were conducted with members of the three

groups and with various public officials in order to obtain

additional and more detailed responses to the problem.

SURVEY RESULTS

The rancher questionnaire responses provide a good indi-

cation of the current state of ranching in Klickitat County as

well as an indication of the ranchers' major concerns. The

complete results are given as Appendix F-1, a summation appears

here.

Owned acreage among the sixteen respondents averaged

1,740 acres, with an additional 2,883 leased acres. The owner-

ship averag~d forty years and the number of cattle, 152. Most

respondents did not have separate summer and winter range areasf

Only two ranchers move their cattle solely by "cattle drive"

methods; most use trucks or a combination of trucks and driving.

These indicate how far livestock ranching in the county has

come from early-day ranching techniques. The decline of separ-

ate summer-winter grazing and numbers of animals indicates.the

widespread use· of" stored feed and diversified farming tech-

niques as discussed earlier.

 74
It should be noted that many of the large ranches in

the ·eastern part of the county were not included in the survey

area. Such ranches typically are highly diversified and incur

less interference from land parcelization problems.

All except one rancher had experienced problems with new

people moving into the area. The major problems listed were

irresponsibility (not closing gates, not building fences or

taking care of their cattle), vandalism (chasing cattle, tear-

ing down signs, indiscriminate shooting, cutting fences) and

trespassing. Non-familiarity with range laws and traditions

and herd law petitioning were major complaints. "Fencing prob-

lems" received the highest number of complaints.

All felt the new residents were affecting them econom-

ically. Breaking land into small parcels, thereby taking it

out of grazing land, was the major complaint. Several felt

the newcomers caused greater cow and calf losses for various

reasons, including rustling.

All cattlemen also felt "herd laws" (stock restricted

areas) placed an economic burden upon them. The cost of fenc-

ing, liabilities, the promotion of the land parcelization were

1
the major reasons.

Other problems with new property owners that were men-

tioned frequently included access road problems, "junky devel-

opment," and dog control.

When·asked how such problems could be prevented, ranch-

ers gave a variety of answers with a number suggesting that

increased responsibility be placed upon the ?\gent or devel-

oper. County road department, sheriff, and planning depart-

 75
ment responsibilities were emphasized. Several "physical"

solutions were suggest~d, such as placing cattle guards on

county roads and fencing all subdivisions. More moderate

approaches included educating buyers concerning pertinent laws

and "meeting neighbors half-wa~" One rancher suggested all

herd law districts be vacated.

The purchaser surveys tell a lot about rural residen-

tial ownership (Appendix F-2). All seventy-five of the re-

sponding purchasers still owned all or part of the land they

bought during the period of land sales used by the survey.

The average lat size was 10. 2 acres. 1970, 1973, and 1977

seemed to be big land sales years. All but©ne purchaser saw

his .. property before purchasing it. Seventy-five percent of

the sales involved land division, eighteen percent did not,

six percent of the purchasers did not know. Forty-seven per-

cent purchased from a land development company, thirty-three

percent from the land owner and twenty percent from local

real estate agents.

Very.few improvements to the land were existing at the

time of purchase. Only three sales involved a house or mobile

home. Electricity was available to only twenty-one percent

of the lots, telephone to only ten percent and a community

water system to just two lots. Seventy-three percent have

access onto private roads or easements only, and only four-

teen percent consider their road to be of good construction

and maintainance.

Seventy-one percent of. .. the lots. are in an· open-~ range

area. Eighteen percent of the purchasers didn't know if

 76
their lots were in open range or not. Sixty-one percent said

the seller did not mention open range subjects when they bought

their land. Twenty-three percent did discuss it. Seventeen

percent of the purchasers didn't remember.

The land parcelization information given by the mail

survey conforms to County records. The average size of lot

reflects the difference between the smaller subdivision lots,

usually about two acres, and the larger short plat division

of five, ten or twenty acres (Footnote, page 4 2:) .. The thirty-

three percent of purchases made directly from land owners re-

fleets the willingness of some ranchers to "sell out." How-

ever, some sales from land owners may have been of the same par-

cels previously divided, especially in platted areas.

The lack of utilities and adequate roads is. a common

trait of rural recreation and residential sites and will be

discussed further.

·seventy-eight percent of the lots were purchased for

recreation and second home reasons. Another twenty-two per-

cent were.bought as retirement home sites. Thirty-nine per-

cent were investments. Only one was purchased as a poten-

tial farm operation. Sixty-two percent of t~e sites are used

"occasionally" or on week-ends and vacations. Twenty-five

percent are already permanently occupied.

Sixty-nine percent of the purchasers are from outside

of Klickitat County~ The average number of people that visit

a site or live on it is 4.1. The average family size of the

county is 3. 4.
 77
Most are satisfied with their lots. Those who are not

cited high utility connection costs, water well costs, and high

taxes.

Grazing livestock was a concern to sixty-four per-

cent of the respondents .. Major problems included breachy an-

imals (tearing down fences), damage to lawns and gardens, and

insects and excrement. Danger to children and animals on the

roadway were also mentioned.

The real estate agents volunteered the least information

of the groups surveyed {Appendix F-3) . Most said they were

familiar with open range traditions and laws. About half had

heard clients mention rangeland problems. Livestock trespass

was the major complaint they had heard. The major method pro-

perty owners use to resolve the problem was fencing, therespond-

ants said. None listed herd law petition as a property owner

action.

Almost all said they inform their clients about range

t~aditions and only one thought range/resident problems were

important enough to require mitigative measures.

Two real estate agents liked herd laws, four <lid not.

None like the idea of mandatory fencing of subdivisions and

short plats. Most thought notification of range status in

the title report was a good idea and all liked the idea of

preparing a booklet that described range traditions that could

be given to clients.
 78
PERSONAL INTERVIEWS

In-person. interviews provided a depth of information not

attainable from mail questionnaires. Examples from each cat-

egory of involved individuals will show the true concerns of

those involved in the issue.

Rancher John Castle complained that his eighteen mile

cattle drive route has been blocked by the sale of a forty-

acre parcel to a party that has posted no trespassing signs.

Mr. Castle said his cattle can't read and went right on across

the forty acre parcel on their habitual trail. He had to

skirt the area on horseback and.catch up with his herd on the

other side. He noted, too, that the elimination of_grazing

due to the establishment of herd law districts increased the

risk of range fire because of grass growth and the increased

population. He described the shift in liability caused by the

herd law as a "$130 cow versus a $5,000 car."

Other conunon concerns of the ranchers interviewed in-

cluded dogs and motor cyclists chasing cattle, the cost of

fencing, suspected cattle rustling, and trail bike damage to

the terrain.

New p~operty owners, such as John Keller, complained of

the hazard of cattle in roadways and breachy animals that

break down fences and trample gardens and yards.

Real estate agent Fred Heany supplied valuable infor-

mation as to ranch economics and land sales. Heany is also

_president of two grazing_ associations which will be discussed

later.
 79
County Extension Agent Roger Pond provided interesting

insights into the livestock business. Pond noted that there

are less than a dozen "full time" cattle operations left in

the county; all other ranches and farms are diversified. He

also conunented that few ranche:r:shave actually gone out of bus-

iness. They have just sold off their herds to other ranchers

and have diversified operations. He feels that much of the

herd law problem has been caused by improper management of

stock. And he philosophically notes that many newcomers are

actually opposed to herd laws because they wi~h to prevent

further development, to "close the door behind then" Several

mail questionnaire answers reflect this attitude. Finally

Pond suggested that many ranchers are more concerned with the

preservation of "a way of life" than with the economics of the

situation. This attitude was verified at a March, 1978 "anti-

herd law meeting" attended by a large number of ranchers. One

cattlemen's wife declared, "I object to them [the herd law

petitioners] taking away our way of life!"

County Sheriff Rich Williams conunented that herd laws

are effective. He feels people do not hesitate to complain

about herd law violations, but rarely will they report pro-

blems on open range land to his agency. "Most are grumble~,"

he says. He also feels more ranchers ha.ve extensive fencing

projects anyway because they find that the cost of the loss

of cattle killed on roadways in range areas is as much if ·not

more than the cost of the fencing.

Forest Ranger Jim Bull provided background information

regarding livestock grazing in the Gifford Pinchot National

 80
Forest. Up to 15,000 head of sheep once grazed the area.

Now ·the several hundred left are limited to the "Ice Caves

Allotment" and the "King Mountain/Mt. Adams Allotment" (See

Table IX).
Goldendale attorney Roger Boardman explained that most

grazing leases are annual and oral agreements and provided

other legal information about grazing leases. Newspaper own-

er Pete May suggested that a booklet be prepared on open

range laws and traditions that could be provided to clients

..
by real estate agents. State Department of Natural Resources area man-

ager Bernard Murphy provided information on grazing problems

on state lands and also on conunercial timber land.

Thus valuable insight into the local aspects of the

issue were obtained through interviews of key people involved.

Appendix G includes a list of the persons interviewed.

 CHAPTER VII

THE ECONOMICS OF PARCELIZATION

IMPACTS OF RECREATION/RESIDENTIAL.LAND PARCELIZATION

UPON RANGELAND

... Resolved: that it is a fundamental responsibil-

ity of our society to encourage land use and owner-
ship, exclusively for the pursuit of agriculture to
maintain a rnax·imum food supply for our people ...
Resolution 21 Adopted
General Session, Washington
Cattlemen's Association
December, 1977

THE LIVESTOCK ECONOMY AND LAND USE

Unfortunately very little data have been published on

the economic importance of the livestock industry at the

county level. As noted in early tables agricultural censuses

provided statistics on acreages grazed, farm size; and herd

size, but to establish the percent of the County economy at-

tributed to the livestock industry is rather difficult, espe-

cially that attributed specifically or wholly to cattle opera-

tions as dis.tinguished from the diversified farms, which in-

elude livestock production. However, there are some inter-

esting figures to review.

Thomas G. Zinn, Oregon State University Extension Agent

(Zinn,.1977) has estimated that the loss in gross sales

to the-cattle industry in Wascn.County,.O~egon. (directly
- ...~. ~~~~· .... ~-.,....~ ... - ...,~..... .. ........~..,..,.. .,. ...... ....

82
across the Columbia River from Klickitat County), from sell-

ing one breeding co~ to be approximately $300 to $400 per

year. 1 If the cattlemen within the study area alone were

"forced" to sell out due to the costs involved in herd law

fences, liability and increased taxes, the loss in gross sales

to the County of the approximately 2,000 range animals would

amount to probably a half million dollars. The same OSU

research indicates the multiplier effect to be 2.7 times the

original dollar sales.

This loss of agricultural· income will have an impact

on the total economy of the •.. County. Farmers and
ranchers would have used this income for making invest-
ments, hiring labor, buying imports such as fertilizer
and feed,. purchasing machinery, and equipment and
incurring family and household expenses. The business-
man from whom farmers buy also make purchases and gen-
erate other business activity. The total impact of
these economic activities is called the multiplier
effect.

Based on imput-output studies ... this multiplier

effect ... is about 2.7 times the original dollar sales.
(Zinn , 1977)"

Th~s, the half million dollar livestock sales could mean

a total loss to the county of nearly three million dollars.

Another attempt to determine economic losses to the

County·because of a livestock industry decline is a 1974

report by the Okanogan Planning Commission (Olson, 9) . .

It figures a loss of about two million dollars in beef commod-

ity over a ten year period, just from the current loss of

grazing land to recreation use.

1
These figures were developed in connection with
research into the result of livestock ~ales due to recent
drought conditions but the principle could be applied if
sales were due to ranchers going out of business for other
reasons.
 83
Economist Darwin Nielson (.150-151) noting that · 11 substan-

tial amounts" of rangeland have been sold for recreation pur-

poses "at a higher rate than other types of farm real estate,"

concludes that at current market values for rangeland and

costs of livestock production,

it is doubtful that ranchers could pay for the land

out of earnings .•. The high price of land coupled with
•.. grazing problems ... doesn't make the ranching pic-
ture too bright. One would expect that if these ppe-
blems continue to plague the industry that some ranch-
ers will have to look to alternative uses of their
landi, such as recreation ..• coal and oil leases to
mention a few. [emphasis supplied]

This "can't beat 'em join 'em" attitude is very ev-

ident in Klickitat County. The number of ranches sold for

residential and recreational use is increasing according to

County records. Loss of ranch operations and livestock pro-

duction, whatever the reason, is a significant threat to the

county economy. Of course, as sales agents are quick to point

out, residential and recrea~ional development can have a pas-

itive effect upon the local economy, such as an increased tax

base and increased sales of goods and services.

RECREATIONAL/RESIDENTIAL LAND USE

... the ideal situation would be to purchase land for

$m00 per acre, put in improvements costing $1 per acre,
incur sales expenses costing $2 per acre; sell one-
acre lots· for $1,000 per acre and immediately discount
the finance paper with no administrative expense at
100 cents on the dollar. (Oppenheimer, 1972, 351)

Land development and speculation have played an import-

ant part in the history of our nation and are by no means a

. h 1
recent-economic p.enomenon. · T h ~-current 1nterest-1rr
. . rura 1

1
For a review of this concept, see Holtgrieve (1976).
 84
land ownership has been attributed to the search for escape

from urban pressures, financial gain, alternative life-style

t~ends, additional free time and money, etc. Oppenheimer

(1966, 106) believes that "The popularity of TV westerns .•.

has created an aura of romanticism about the ownership of ...

tracts of western land. 11

Krueger ( 155) remarks that
the endless array of interesting scenery across the
range ... cattle, sheep, cowboys, rustic cabins, corrals
... contribute to enjoyment and serve as a reminder of
the cultural heritage of the west

all of which are attractions of the range. Whatever the

reason, rural growth in Klickitat County is obvious and is

reflected in the previous tables and charts.

In rural areas it is difficult to distinguish between

recreational and residential land uses at times. Subdivisions

originally intended as unimproved campsites often eventually

become permanent residential lots. In fact, recreational

opportunities themselves are a major reason for the popular-

ity of rural residential living. The importance of this as-

pect of rangeland is difficult .to measure in an economic

sense. Krueger (154) states that.the prqducts of rangelands

(grazing, timber, water, minerals) often have "ill-defined

market values ... The first and probably most extensive product

of ill-defined value is that of recreation."

The multiple use concept of range management has become

increasingly involved in recreation potential. Krueger (loc.

cit.) again remarks that "range management programs to en-

hance rangelands for particular recreational uses are real-

istic and attainable. 11

Maesner (1) remarks· that
 85
recreation is a recognized land use in conservation planning

and that "it will receive the same consideration "[by Soil

Conservation Service Personnel} as cropland, hayland, pastureland,

rangeland or wildlife land." Thus the importance of recrea-

tion uses in range areas has become a major topic of censer-

vation and agricultural agencies. U. S. Forest Service offi-

cial R. M. Housley, Jr. points directly to the problem here

addressed.

Recreation users find that livestock and ranching

operations add measurably to their outdoor experience
.•. Because some grazing operations ... are economically
marginal, or because human impact from recreationists
will grow in some areas, people-use may well supplant
livestock use. (Housley, 380}

While the economic value of recreation opportunities

may be hard to define at times, residential development

associated with it can be measured in terms of land sales,

assessed valuation and development costs.

· The temptation for ranchers faced with economic uncer-

tainty is often overwhelming. Figure 11 shows the areas of

major ranch sales activity in Klickitat County. Appendix H

is a copy of a "feeler" from a real estate company sent to

most ranchers in the county. Such offers are tempting to

many ranchers. One respondent to the rancher survey noted,

"I am now in the process of subdividing my ranch and will

move to another area in order that I may stay in ranchin~"

Oppenheimer (1966,'96-97) describes the conversion of

a large working ranch in Arizona. Developers purchased an

old ranch of 30,000 acres upon which it took sixty acres to

support one cow. There was sufficient water for 500 head.
 R12E R14E R16E R18E R22E
YAKIMA

z >-
co I-
+;' ..-
\ -Yakima CD
m
I- z -I z
:::::> -+
0 0
~ z
<I: (')
z 0
<I: c
~ z
<I: -+
~ -<
_t!!_

z
'<t
I-

RANCH SALES ACTIVITY

G~il~i Sales Activity ~

MILES

S Voce. 1980

Figure 11. Ranch sales activity.

00

°'
 ,.,

87
H~ notes that twenty modern houses consume as much water as

5qo cows, without allowing for lawn or garden use. The 30,000

a4res were divided into 3,000 "ranch sites" of ten acres each

atjd were sold at $1,000 each with fifty dollars down and five

dollars a month. One-third of the cash received went for aa~

vertising.

At first these types of deals were looked on with

great amusement by the local people in many of the
western states. However, they suddenly realized that
an increasing number of the old integrated ranches
that formed a major part of their states' productive
income were being broken up. Enough of the new buy-
ers would retain ownership, even if sixty percent
defaulted on their notes, ever to permit these ranches
to be legally put back together again as economic
units. Oppenheimer (1966, 95)

Although development operations have not reached that

scale in Klickitat County, the process and result are similar.

Grazing land valued by the County Assessor at thirty to sixty

dollars an acre is being sold in twenty-, ten- and five acre

parcels for recreation-residential use at $350 to $700 per acre

(Heany interview). This particular area grazes one cow per

forty acres on the average. At an investment of $1,200 per

cow the ranchers average a thirty dollar per acre investment

per cow. Currently the Federal Land Bank (the most common

finance source for ranchers) will loan only half that amount,

or fifteen dollars per acre. Such figures substantiate the

reason ranchers sell out.

Most remote subdivisions, such as Bridlewood Meadows,

Timber Valley and Oak Knoll (mentioned earlier, page 6 S) are

developed with little improvements, "to maintain their rus-

tic characteristic" and also to keep down development costs.

 88
These three subdivisions have private gravel roads, no utili-

ties, and no real fire protection. To bring the roads up to

county standards would cost nearly $250,000 a mile {County

Engineer estimate). The property owners (not the developer)

had to form a local improvement district and petition the

Public Utility District to bring electricity to the area, at

great expense. Yet these remote subdivisions are extremely

popular, especially with out-of-state purchasers. One sub-

division near Bickleton has a large number of Massachusetts

and California owners. Most individuals there bought sight

unseen. In the survey area, however, only one purchased the

property without seeing it first. Eighty-six percent were

satisfied with their lots.

The land originally assessed at thirty-five dollars an

acre is now valued in the thousands of dollars per acre.

Table XII shows the assessed values in three remote subdivi-

sions.

Short plats (two to four lot divisions) have not had as

dramatic an increase in land valuation, primarily because of

their large acreage {five to twenty acres} and scattered

nature. Here too though, assessed valuations commonly

increase to ten times the level of the agricultural valuations.

 TABLE XII

ASSESSED VALUATION OF THREE REMOTE SUBDIVISIONS

TOTAL IMPROVED AVERAGE TOTAL UNIMPROVED AVERAGE

Bridlewood Meadows $84,140 $14,023 $340,255 $5,401

Timber Valley I 71,235 11,873 158,065 3,436

Timber Valley II 215,450 9,793 190,735 3,974

Timber Valley III 25,580 6,395 154,370 3,508

Oak Knoll NO IMPROVEMENTS 66,000 2,000

Source: Klickitat County Assessor's Office

co
\.D
 CHAPTER VIII

SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS

OF PARCELIZATION

The sale of recreational homesites has had an

alarming impact on rangeland use in the Western
United States ... Not only do their unplanned devel-
opments remove rangeland from production, but hhey
indirectly affect range use through increased pollu-
tion, taxes, and other social interactions.
(Stoddart, 427)·

Recently a number of studies have been made of the

socio-economic, political and environmental impacts of rec-

reation subdivisions, as well as their costs to the public.

Most deal with the topic generally or regionally but some

specifically mention rangeland recreation homesites. A perus-

al of the material therein will assist in the study of the

Klickitat County experience.

A most encompassing study has been made by Richard

Ragatz (i977, 1-2) . Table XIII shows Ragatz's selected impac-

tors as well as his method of evaluating developers and land

developments. Herbert Hoover's Colorado study (n.d., 15)

indicates that ninety-nine percent of the recreational sub-

divisions in northern Colorado are on grazing land. He notes:

Recreation subdivisions are taking lands in less

intensive agricultural use; nevertheless, these lands
are critical to the area. Although the rangeland is
vast, and the products realized from its forage are
vital to the area's agricultural economy, additional
significance lies in the watershed protection it pro-
vides, its growing contribution to enjoyment of out-
- door recreation and its provision of wildlife habitat
 91

TABLE XIII

RECREATIONAL SUBDIVISIONS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON

AGRICULTURAL LANDS (RAGATZ)

I. Selected Impacts of Recreational Subdivisions

A. Economic Impacts
1. expansion of local tax base
2. stimulant to building and construction industries
3. expansion of "service" economy
4. no children for school system if seasonal occupancy
5. decrease of primary industry (farming, forestry, etc.)
6. long-range public costs for servicing
7. effects of seasonal fluctuation in economy
8. implications for primary home voting patterns
9. duplication of resources, services, etc.
10. other externalities (reputation, tourists, conven~
tions, etc. )

B. Social/Political Impacts
1. the recreation experience
2. increased quality of local decision making process
3. income discrimination
4. social conflicts
5. disruption of local values
6. appropriate base for political power
7. who uses the infra-structure facilities
8. checkerboa!d ownership pattern

C. Environmental Impacts
1. transfer to permanent homes
2. aesthetic
3. water, sewer, waste, etc.
4. ecological sensitivity
5. wildlife and conservation
6. trade-offs with economic impacts
7. the environmental spill-over

II. Some 25 Items for Evaluating D.evelopers/Ilevelopments

1. parent corporation and implied fiscal stability

2. experience of personnel in land development, packaging,
... acquisition, etc.
3. experience in areas of shelter and recreation
 92
4. previous tract record
5. opportunity for economics of scale
6. proximity to primary and secondary markets
7. extent of preparatory work (market analysis, feasibil-
ity study, land use plan, engineering studies for
sewer, water and roads, marketing strategy, etc.)
8. balance of in-house staff and reputable consultants
9. communications with public officials and approach to
public regulatory system
10. quality and believability of filing with U. S. HUD
office of Interstate Land Sales Registration and State
of Oregon
11. believability of environmental impact statement
12. understanding of local scene (regs, geography, etc.)
13. awareness of changing market conditions
14. bonding or other security for insuring provision of
promises
15. short-range and long-range provisions __ for built-out
and actual useage
16. responsibility desired for county to assume
17. responsibility desired for property owners to assume
18. on-site project manager
19. provisions for long term maintenance and operation
20. creation of deed restrictions
21. user fees and public use
22. quality and type of marketing program
23. type of compensation to salesmen
24. understanding of the competition
25. type of contracts offered consumers, financing, etc.

Source: Richard L. Ragatz, Paper presented at the Oregon

State University Extension Service Spring Semi-
Annual Training Session, Bend, Oregon, March 4, 1977.
 93
and natural beauty. Thus, any activity such as rec-
reation subdivisions that damages the existing land
use is cause for concern (Hoover, 15).

Dick Brown, Crook County (Oregon) Planning Director

lists a number of ~negative effects which tend to outweigh

posit~ve tax and economic b~rref its to the 6ounty from recrea-

tiona-1 snbdivisions (Brown I 38) . His list includes "riearly fraud-

ulent sale programs" by non-local realtors, tax foreclosures

averaging five to ten lots per year and subdivision residents'

requests for road improvements, school bus service, and police

protection without any on-site improvement which might boost

the county tax base and help pay for services. Brown calls

these "taxpayer time bombs." Other major concerns.he ex-

presses deal with impacts upon agricultural lands. These include

trespass up:m rancJ:l ·lands by new residents (rnischeviotls and criminal) ,

higher· liabilit~ rates in insurance and losses to criminal

trespass for ranchers, and nuisance complaint~ by lot owners

(livestock trespass, agricultural spraying, odors, etc.) and

additional safety and pollution controls placed upon ranch

operations due -to increased population.

Jefferson County (Oregon) Planning Commissioner Greg

Macy adds that

Conflicts between the farmer and subdivision res-

ident emerge generated by noise, odors, dust, spray-
ing, and slow traffic. Lacking political power and
sufficient voting numbers to mitigate residential
complaints, farmers are forced to either abandon their
operation or adopt costly, uneconomical measures to
reduce conflict. (Macy, 40).

Two other studies should be mentioned here. Distance

from services (schools, stores, etc.) and availability of

utilities were of particular interest to Charles Campbell in

 94
his thesis, The Remote Subdivision in Arizona: Characteristics

and Distribution. (Campbell, 1-969). Weber, Youmans and

Harrington (1978) reporting on the impact of recreational and

rural residential subdivisions in Klamath County, Oregon

provide excellent data on the effect of rural subdivision

upon local taxes. Table XIV reflects the fiscal impacts of

an isolated recreation subdivision of 112 lots in that county.

Note that the impacts are in negative terms. The justifica-

tion of these figures is well documented in the report. The

major reason this particular subdivision "cost" the county

more than it produced in revenues was because the residents

generated enough pressure to persuade the county to make major

im~rovements to an access road and to put i t on the county

maintenance schedule.

In an Okanogan County Planning Department report, Olson

i~sts the following concerns with a particular area

of rural land parcelization activity: poor fence maintenance,

water rights disputes, financial insolvency, and questionable

land title, expenses to law enforcement ("the Sheriff's office

reported its enforcement at an excess of $4,800 during 1971 ...

received $252 as its share of taxes"), health department

costs, a school district expense of $2,136 to service a remote

area for a handful of children, and state fire control costs.

The report states that "this subdivision will not, in the

lifetime of many taxpayers, pay for itself; but they will be

paying for it".(Olson~ .8) . . A !!evi~ now of the Klickitat County

experience will show similiar concerns and impacts.

 95

TABLE XIV

SUMMARY OF THE FISCAL IMPACTS OF AN ISOLATED

RECREATIONAL SUBDIVISION (112 LOTS)
IN KLAMATH COUNT¥, OREGON

TOTAL PER PLATTED ·LOT

County

Added Revenues $ 1,069 $ 9.54

Added Expenditures 2,131 19.03

Net Fiscal Impact ($ 1,062) ($ 9.49)

School District

Added Revenues $ 6,635 $59.24

Added Expenditures 10,731 95.81

Net Fiscal Impact ($ 4,096) ($36. 57)

Figures in parenthesis indicate negative fiscal.impacts

that added expenditures exceed added revenues. Figures are

annual averages, based on the period 1966-1972.

From: Weber, Youmans,. and Harringto~ ( 34)

 96
The concerns expressed in the above mentioned reports

reflect almost word for word the experience of Klickitat

County. For instance, ::the 1975 Klickitat County Regional

Planning ·.Council report includes the following list descrihing

land parcelization in Klickitat County:

*57% of the lands are in forest areas

*30% of the lands are agricultural areas

*76% of the lands are grazing areas

*over 300 parcelizatiom (mostly 20 acres) have occurred

j- on these lands
1
*over 30% of the purchasers are non-county residents

*it is estimated that 15% of the purchasers buy the pro-

. h t unseen 2
perty sig

*the County Commissioners have received numerous requests

for road improvements in areas not served by existing or dev-

oped county roads.

*many violations of the short plat and subdivision ord-

inances or their intent have occurred by failing to record

contracts and creating lots barely in excess of the 20 acres

lot provision (Klickitat County Regional Planning Council, 4).

The high incidence of land division within range areas

is similar to the Colorado experience. And the road mainten-

ance question has been a major concern to the Klickitat County

1
The 1977 mail survey prepared for this study indicates
that69% of the purchasers were from out-of-County.
2
The mail questionnaire indicates only one individual
__who_ bought._ sight_ unseen··--· However,.. the ..County .report .included
several developments out of the survey area that have a high
percentage of out-of-state owners.
- ........~--- ._.,..._,,,,,,__,, .....~ ........

97
Road Engineer and Board of Commissioners, such as the pro~

posed road improvements urged in the rapidly parcelizing

Burdoin .Mountain area (Figures lQ and 13).,. r:ozens of srrall tracts

(smrt plats)i have been recorded in that area since 1970. The

"residents and the developer petitioned the county to improve three and a

half miles of al:::andoned county roads and construct another 2.3 miles.

The County finally agreed to do the work in 1978 after five

years of pressure. The residents and developer are paying a

portion of the costs. Yet the original proposal caught the

Board without prior knowledge that the development was occur-

ring in that area. No furrls had been allocated for road improverrents

in that area in the County's six-year road plan.

The sample survey also indicated a similar problem to

that noted in Crook County. The lack of taxable improvements

on the recreational lots means that public costs cannot be

offset. Trespass and liability probiems were duly noted in

the survey. The erosion of the political and/or voting power

of the ranchers by the more numerous new residents was expres-

sed in several personal interviews with ranchers.

Unscrupulous land sales and questionable development

practices have occurred in Klickitat County as in other areas

where recreation developments are promoted. A Washington

State Legislative report prepared for a proposed amendment to

the state land.development act includes, under a section en-

titled "Complaints Received .on Developnents., 11 the following:

King's. Ranch; ..Klickitat County: Failure to discm&se

underlying contract and insolvency, failure to build
promised clubhouse, golf course ·and other amenities
(Washington State L~gislature, 3).
 98

King Ranch, a 17,000 acre development northeast of

Goldendale (Figure 12) has a history of land sales problems.

It is interesting to note that even after years of promotion

as a recreation development, the developers challenged the

County Assessor's reclassification of the land from agricul-

tural and timber to recreation use!

A comparison of the Ragatz list of selected impacts of

recreational subdivision(Table XIII) with the Klickitat County

situation should summarize the extent of the problem:

Economic Impacts

expansion of local tax base - lack of improvement to

the land outweigh.tax benefits

school system - costs for additional bus trips for

few students

decrease of primary industry - discourage ranching

public costs - road maintenance, police and fire pro-

tection, regulatory agency costs

implications for primary home voting patterns - pew

residents outnumber ranchers at the polls

reputation - loss of amenities which orignally created

the demand for homesites

Social/Political Impacts

the recreation experience - loss of amenities which

originally created the demand for homesites

social conflicts - complaints of trespass, nuisance

vanadlism, rustling, etc.l
base political power - new residents create new
\noting patterns

1 An attempt was made to research County Sherfff Depart-

ment records in order to establish amount of serious range-
recreation conflict. However, recent changes in the federal
privacy laws prohibited_ use. Eleven ·cattle trespass complaints
were processed in 1977.
 99
checkerboard ownership patterns - interupt traditional
grazing patterns and ranch activities

Environmental Impacts 1

terrain damage by motorcycles is a major complaint

over grazing caused by the "unauthorized" livestock

of new residents

open range protects watershed

increased fire danger when range not grazed

1
see also Campbell (1972) regarding environmental
effects of rural subdivisions:
001
 CHAPTER IX

TRENDS AND COMPROMISES

The current trend in rural land use in Klickitat County

remains one of increasing parcelization and subdivision activ-

ity, even with stricter, recently adopted and proposed land

use ordinances. Attempts by the County to preserve and pro-

tect rangeland .through the comprehensive planning process

continue. The Qomprehensive land use plan (Klickitat0Co.un:t1i~

30.) has an agricultural policy that "Rangeland should be

protected against encroachment by residential development" .

A similar policy is found in the housing goals sec-

tion, which states that "Residential recreational developments

should be regulated so as not to interfere with grazing rights

or create environmental problems" (KliGkitat County, 52).

Yet land parcelization continues. Herd law district

formation also continues. A major herd law petition before

the County at this time would close the range on 230,000 acres

of western Klickitat County, which includes the present sur-

vey area (Goldendale Sentinel, .1978) .

Several measures have been alluded to herein as means

of mitigating this land use conflict. More stringent land

use ordinances ar~ not likely to deter much land partition-

ing but might ease the conflict. Some ordinances have already
 102
been revised to reflect this need. For instance, the County

subdivision ordinance now requires fences:

9.04 DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVEMENTS -- RANGELAND PROTECTION

If a subdivision is within or partly within an area not
designated as a Stock Restricted Area the developer
shall adequately fence the perimeter of the subdivision,
and shall install cattle guards at each road entrance
to the subdivision, to prevent range livestock from
entering the platted area ...
[fence construction standards included here]
Standards for cattleguards shall be the current stand-
ards acceptable to the County Engineer.
It shall be the responsibility of the developer
and/or homeowners association to maintain fencing
and cattleguards. (Klickitat County Subdivision
Ordinance, 20)

New forms of real estate transactions and property use

show promise. The Columbia Rim Owners Association(involving

an area of mostly unimproved twenty acre parcels )__has within

its by-laws stipulations that property owners must leave all

property, (except house and yard) in a natural unfenced condi-

tion (Appendix I). The unused properties are then leased to

a local rancher for grazing. The funds collected from the

grazing lease are used for improvements to the area, such as

road repair. Fences are required around yards. Such coven-

ants might alleviate some of the conflict with the rancher as

well as insure homesites in the "western Atmosphere" so

desired.

The concept of a range law and tradition booklet to be

given to clients was a popular solution of many realtors. At

least, purchasers would be aware of the situation before buy-

ing property.

If recently proposed herd law districts are established

(Figures 5 and 13) livestock grazing will be effectively

·--------·---.. . ·-·--· ----..
·-----~- ----~* --..--.. --~·~·-- -~~ .. ~·- ---~-------·-~----~--· .

103

R10E 1 n • •F
YAKIMA
A12E I R13E I R14E
COUNTY

Y~~,.,_ GLENWOOD - ~ - ll •
,a .."~:no
::::
..q
RESEn .- .

z
I()
I-

z
"'
I-

z
(')
I-

z
('\!
I-

APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF PROPOSED HERD LAW DISTRICT

EB
0 ·2 4
MILES

K. Stratton·Gi~bs, 1980~
1

Figure 13. Proposed herd law district .

 ~04

eliminated from the County. This could result in a decline in

livestock production, or perhaps existing animal numbers might

remain fairly constant as ranchers are forced to diversify and

fence and as other ranchers absorb stock within their opera-

tions. In any case, recreation and residential land use would

increase greatly as former grazing lands became available for

that use. Testimony submitted at a herd law meeting indicated

that this land use change occurred in Bonner County, Idaho

ten years ago. Recreation activity there has now completely

replaced the once viable cattle industry.

It should be noted that the major leasers of grazing

lands in western Klickitat County, the State Department of

Natural Resources and the timber companies (SDS Lumber Com-

pany and St. Regis Paper Company) have recently gone on

record as favoring herd law establishment. This is a rever-

sal of long standing policies of support of grazing on timber

lands as part of the multiple use concept of forest manage-

ment. Foresters now affirm that grazing livestock harm seed-

ling trees and thus damage production (White Salmon Enterprise,

1978). Also, conunent. by timber company. officials

indicates an interest in selling or leasing unprofitable tim-

berlands for recreation parcels. This important change in

attitude by the large leasers has added immense political and

economic weight to the new residents' demand for herd law

establishment. The clout represented here may be equal to or

greater than that of the powerful county Livestock Growers

Association and its parent organization, the Washington Cattle-

J

men's Association.
 105
In light of the obvious political situation of this

range use question, perhaps Housley's counsel should be

heeded:

We must recognize there are places where range activ-

ity will have to move over for recreation, and others
where recreation will have to make way for grazing use.
There will be fewer irreconcilable conflicts if law-
makers and policymakers resist the thrust toward sep-
arate management of each resource and total allocation
of land to indivdual uses. This thrust is surfacing
in recreation, but not there alone. Management in a
vacuum may be the easy way, but it se~uesthhe0pWhlic
poorly (Housley, 380).

SUMMARY

Klickitat County in a sense has been a microcosm of the

history of the West.· The first use· of the area by white man

was for free range cattle grazing. Vast herds moved through

and pastured in the tall grasses of the Klickitat Valley.

But the inevitable conflict with settlers came in but a few

years as homesteads and market towns grew. Cultivation,

fences, and sheep pushed cattlemen out of the fertile plains

and into the scrub pine forests. Weather and variable mar-

kets dealt the.final blow to the free range cattle industry.

Yet the cattle industry flourished in permanent ranch

operations with leased grazing lands. And most such ranches

eventually diversified to include hay cropping and other farm

ventures. Thus, Ericksen's three stages in the development

of livestock production are evident in the history of

Klickitat Count~ (Ericksen, 39).

···Only ··recently has-- the· cattleman again ·been threatened

by the spread of settlement. The new settler, the "recreation

 106
homesteader," has placed increased demands upon grazing land

use and created socio-economic conflicts within the area.

Laws and legal tools have protected, even favored, the

livestock grazing industry from the early "implied license" to

graze on all unenclosed lands (Oliphant, 319) to the unwilling-

ness of the state legislature to enact herd law enabling leg-

islation, and the reluctance of County Commissioners to close

grazing lands in range areas. Even current local plans and

ordinances are designed to protect and support agricultural

range use.

Yet the constant influx of people and their desire for

rural recreation and residential housing presses hard ~pon

those few ranchers who rely upon the open ra~ge for their

economic li velih<xxL The fear of the loss of "a way of life"

may be stronger motivation to those involved, and a stronger

reason for societal concern, than any potential economic

loss; especially if, as would seem evident, livestock produc-

tion can continue to survive under the diversified farm

methods.

As is usually the case, this land use question is also

an economic, political, en.v·ironfuem:ti.al and social question

and the eventual outcome, the resultant land use change, will

but r~flect the interplay and resolution of those concerns.

Only recently ... have we.recognized the fundamental

and enduring importance of •.. the individual landhold
as a determinant of far reaching effect on agricul-
tural practices, settlements, and the whole economy
of an area (Hartshorne, 1959,. 52).

Klickitat County ranchers would certainly agree with

that.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERENCES CITED

General

American Society of Range Management, 1964, A Glossary of

Terms Used in Range Management, Portland, Oregon. .

Ballou, Robert, 1938, Early Klickitat Valley Days, Golden-

dale, Washington.

Boxley, Robert F., 1977 1 Landownership Issues in Rural America,

Economic Research Service, U. S. Dept. of Agruculture,
Bulle.tin ERS 655.

Boyce, Todd Vernon, 1937, A History of ~he Beef Cattle In-

dustry In The Inland Empire, Pullman, Washington, State
College of Washington, Masters Degree Thesis.

Brown, Dick, 1977, "Recreational Subdivisions and Their Effects

on Agricultural Lands," Proceedings, Oregon State Univer-
sity Extension Services Spring Semi-Annual Training Ses-
sion, Bend, Oregon, March 3-4, 1977, pp. 38-39.

Bush, Steven E., 1Q76, Range Management Plan: Twin Buttes

Sheep and Goat Allotment, u. s. Forest Service, Trout
Lake, Washington, unpublished.

Cairns, Luman E., Walter R. Butcher, and Arthur W. Peterson,

1966, Conboy National Wildlife Refuge: Estimate of Prob-
able Effects on the Glenwood Community, Pullman, Wash-
ington Agriculture Experiment Station, Washington Statee
University, Circular 466.

Campbell, Charles E., 1969, The Remote Subdivision in Arizona:

Characteristics and Distribution, Tucson, Ariiona, ·Univer-
gi ty of Arizona, Master of Arts Thesis.
- , 1972, in"Some
- - - -dividing Environmental Effects of Rural Sub-
an Arid Area: A Case Study in Arizona,"
Journal of Geography, Volume LXXI, Number 3, March,
pp. 14 7-154.

Columbia Rim Owners Association, 1978, By-laws of Col~bia

Rim Owners Association, unpublished.
 - - .., ... ... '"" .. 1' ~-.....--I"" ... ,,. .._...... - - ... "' ... ......... .. - .,. _.,..,.. ... .,. ... -..,,... f"" • .. .•

108
Cooperative Extension Service, 1975, Range. Multiple Use Man-
agement, Pullman, Washington State University (in coop-
eration with Oregon State University and the University
of Idaho) •

(The) ·Enterprise, 1978, "Petition Upsets Cattlemen," White

Salmon, Washington, Thursday, March 2, Volume 75, Number
3, p. 1.

Ericksen, Sheldon D., 1953, Occupance in the Upper Deschutes

Basin, Oregon, Chicago, University of Chicago, Depart-
ment of Geography Research Paper Number 32.

(The) Goldendale Sentinel, 1977, "Coyotes Synthetics, Range

Put End to Sheepherding Days," Livestock Improvement
Supplement, Thursday, March 24, 1977, pp. 8-9.

(The) Goldendale Sentinel, 1978, "Herd Law Proposed," Thurs-

day, June 15, p. 1.

Hartshorne, Richard, 1939, The Nature of Geography, Lancaster,

Pennsylvania, Association of American Geographers.

~-~~-' 1959, Perspective on the Nature of Geography, Chicago,

Association of American Geographers and Rand McNally.

Holtgrieve, Donald G., 1976, "Land Speculation and Other Pro-

cesses in American Historical Geography," The Journal of
Geography, Volume 75, Number 1, January, pp. 53-64.

Hoover, Herbert, n.d., Patterns, Policies, and Problems in

Colorado Land Use and Development: Recreation Sub-
division Activity In Colorado's South-Central Mountain
Area, 1967-72, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service and the Cooperative Extension Service,
Fort Collins, Colorado, Colorado State University.

Housley, Jr., R.· M., 1970, "What Has Range Management Done
for Recreation--Lately?" Journal.of Range Management,
Vol. 23, Number 5, September, pp. 379-381. ·

(An) Illustrated History of .Klickitat, Yakima and ~ittitas

Counties, 1904, Spokane, Interstate Publishing Company.

Jordan, Terry G., 1972, "The Origin and Distribution of Open

Range Cattle Ranching," Social Science Quarterly, Volume
53, Number 1, June, pp. 105-121.

______ ;_ _1977, "Early Northeast Texas and the Evolution

o-f. Weste:irn Ranching,·" Annals of the Association of·
American Geographers, Volume 67, Numoer I, Maren, pp.
6-6-87.
 109
Klickitat County, 1977, Klickitat County Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, Goldendale, Washington.

Klickitat County Planning Department, 1978, Subdivision and

Short Plats Status Report, Unpublished, Goldendale,
Washington, February.

Klickitat County Public Utility District Number One, 1963,

From Wild Horses to Horse Power: 25th Annual Report,
Goldendale, Washington.

- - - -, 1966, Annual Report 1966, Goldendale, Washington.

Klickitat County Regional Planning Council, 1975, The Open

Space Dilemma in Klickitat County: Preservation of
Agriculture and Forest, versus Recreation Development,
Goldendale, Washington.

Krueger, William C., 1975, "Range Management and Our.-Social

Responsibilities," Range Multiple Use Management, Pull-
man, Cooperative Extension Service, Washington State
University, February, pp. 153-158.

Macy, Greg, 1977, "Recreational Subdivisions and Their Effects

on Agricultural Lands," Proceedings, Oregon State Univer-
sity Extension Services Spring Semi-Annual Training Ses-
sion, Bend, Oregon, March 3-4, 1977, pp. 40-41.

Maesner, Clarence M., 1977, Recreation Responsibility to the

Private Landowner, Speech given at Recreation and Fish
and Wildlife Meeting for Soil Conservation Service
Personnel, Portland, Oregon, February 24, 1977.

May, Pete, 1978, "Pioneers Ran Large Herds," The Goldendale

Sentinel, Thursday, March 23, 1978, p. 10.

Meinig, D. W., 1968, The Great Columbia Plain, Seattle, Univer-

sity of Washington Press.

Nielson, Darwin B., 1975, "Range Economics - Private Land and

Survival," Range Multiple Use Management, Pullmarr,Coop-
erative Extension Service, Washington State University,
February, pp. 137-152.

Oliphant, J. Orin, 1968, On The Cattle Ranges of the Oregon

Country, Seattle, University of Washington Press.

Olson, Art, 1972, Subdivision of Land in Okanogan County,

Unpublished memorandum dated July 7, Okanogan County
Planning \ Department, Okanogan, Washington

Oppenheimer, Harold L., 1966, Cowboy Economics: Rural Land

as an Investment, Danville, Illinois, The Interstate
Press.
 110
~~~~-' 1972, Land Speculation: An Evaluation and Analysis,
Danville, Illinois, The Interstate Press.

Ragatz, Richard, 1977, "Recreation Subdivisions and Their

Effects on Agricultural Lands," Proceedings, Oregon
State University Extension Services Spring Semi-Annual
Training Session, Send, Oregon, March 3-4, 1977, pp.
29-32.

Sheller, Roscoe, 1957, Ben Snipes, Northwest Cattle King, Port-

land, Oregon, Binfords and Mort.

Splawn, A. J., 1944, Ka-mi-akin, Last Hero of the Yakimas,

Portland, Oregon.

Stoddart, Laurence A. and Smith, Arthur D., 1975, Range Manage-

ment, New York, McGraw-Hill.

United States Department of Commerce, 1975, 1974 Census of

Agriculture, Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Print-
ing Office.

Warwick, Donald P. and Lininger, Charles A., 1975, The Sample

Survey: Theory and Practice, New York, McGraw-Hill.

Washington Cattleman's Association, 1977, "Resolutions Passed

1977 Convention," The Washington Cattleman, Issue Number
328, December, pp. 11-12.

Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1967, Washington

Livestock, Oly~pia, Statistical Reporting Ser~ice.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 1976, "State

Land Leases in Force in Klickitat County, January, 1976"
(Computer Printout) .

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, n.d.,

Grazing Rules and Regulations, Olympia, State Printing
Office.

Washington State Department of Revenue, 1975, "In the Market

Place", Olympia, Bulletin dated April, 1975.

Washington State Legislature, 1977, HB 654, Amendment to Land

Development Act, RCW 58.19, Deleting Five-acre Exemption,
Sponsor Report Form, Olympia.

Washington State Office of Program Planning and Fiscal Manage-

ment, 1977, "Official April 1, 1977, Population of the
Cities, Towns, and Counties, State of Washington,"
Olympia, mimeographed.
 111
Weber, Bruce; Youmans, Russell; Harrington, Rick, 1977, "Rural
Subdivisions and Local Taxes: The Fiscal Impact of
'Recreational' and Rural Residential Subdivisions in
Klamath County, Oregon," Oregon State University Exten-
sion Service, Corvallis, November. (Published as Special
Report 503, February, 1978).

Zinn, Thomas G., 1977, Letter dated August 16, 1977 to Zimmer-
man, Killingsworth, Kerr, Cook and Pond re: effects of
drought on livestock production in Wasco County.

Laws and Ordinances

Klickitat County Short Plat Ordinance Number 81274, 1974,

(Revised as Ordinance Number 5158, 1978).

Klickitat County Subdivision Ordinance Number 81970, 1970.

Klickitat County Zoning Ordinance Number 51870, 1969.

Laws of Washington Territory, 1879, "An Act Entitled an Act

to Ascertain the Wishes of the People in Certain Coun-
ties in Regard to the Fence Law," Local and Private Laws,
Olympia, Territorial Legislature, pp. 234-235.

Laws ·of Washington Territory, 1883, "An Act to Provide For a

Herd Law," General Laws, Olympia, Territorial Legisla-
ture, pp. 55-56.

Revised Code of Washington, n.d., Title 16, Animals, Estrays,

Brands, Fences, and Stock Restricted Areas, Olympia.

Court Case Citations

Bly v. McAllister (1961) 158 Wash Dec. 708, 364 P2d, 500.

Buford v. Houtz, 133 US 326 (1890).

Green v. Biles-Coleman Lumber Company (1961) 158 Washington

Dec 305, 362, P.2nd, 593.

Kobayashi v. Strangeway (1911) 64 Wn 36, 116 P 461.

MacKenzie-Richardson, Inc. v. Albert {1954) 45 Wn 2d 1, 272

P2d 146.

Misterek v. Washington Mineral Products, Inc. (1975) 85 Wn 2d

166, 531 P2d 805.. .

Scanlan v. Smith (1965) 66 Wn 2d, 404 P2d 776.

Timm and Forck v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, 3 Wash

Ter Rep 299 (1887).
 112
OTHER REFERENCES

Allix, Andre, 1948, "L'Esprit et les Methodes de la Geograph-

ie, 11 Etudes Rhodaniennes, Universite de Lyon, Volume IV,
pp. 295-310.

American Society of Planning Officials, 1976a, Subdividing

Rural America, Impacts of Recreation Lot and Second Home
Development, United States Council on Environmental Qual-
ity, Washington, D. C.

Anderson, E. William and Harris, Robert W., 1973, References

on Grazing Resources of the Pacific Northwest (Oregon,
Washington, British Columbia 1896 through 1970; Denver,
Society of Range Management.

Anderson, Raymond L., 1975, "Urbanization of Rural Land along

Northern Colorado's Front Range," Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April,
pp. 94-95 (reprint).

Barham, Marv, 1977, "Senate Group Airs Abuses in Recreational

Land Sales," The Wenatchee (Washington) World, November
13, 1977, pp. 1-2.

Barron, James C. and Florea, Bruce, 1973, Open Space Taxation;

Guidelines for Assessing Open Space Property Values,
Pullman, Cooperative Extension Service, Washington State
University.

Broek, J. O. M., 1938, "The Concept of Landscape in Human Geog-

raphy," Comptes rendus d. Congr. Intern. d. Geogr.,
Amsterdam, Tome 2, Sec. 3a, pp. 103-109.

Burcham, L. T., 1957, California Range Land, Sacramento, State

of California Department of Natural Resources.

Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, 1975, The Chang-

ing Role of Government in the Subdivision ~nd Partition-
ing of Land in Oregon, Eugene, University of Oregon,
Planning Bulletin Number 8.

Calef, Wesley, 1960, Private Grazing and Public Lands, Chicago,

The University of Chicago Press.

Cooperative Extension Service, 1969, Pacific Northwest Range;

Its Nature and Use, Pullman, Washington, Washington
State University (in cooperation with Oregon Stat~ Univer-
sity and the University of.Idaho) Pacific Northwest
Bulletin 73.

Cotton, J. S., 1905, Range Management in the State of Washr

· ington, Washington, D. C., U. s. Department of Agricul-
ture, Bulletin Number 75.
 \.

113
Downie, Jr., Leonard, 1974, Mortgage on America, New York
Praeger.

Economic Research Service, 1970, Major Issues of Land in the

United States: Summary for 1969, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report Number 247.

Economic Research Service, 1974, Our Land and Water Resources:

Current and Prospective Supplies and Uses, U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Elias, Claude E. and Warren, William, 1963, The Remote Sub-

division: Economic and Legal Aspects of Land Sales Pro-
motion, Los Angeles, University of California Printing
Department, Research Pamphlet.

Foss, Phillip O., 1960, Politics and Grass, The Administration

of Grazing on the Public Domain, Seattle, University of
Washington Press.
! (The) Goldendale Sentinel, 1977, "County's Cattle Exceed
;
I $200,000," Livestock Improvement Supplement, Thursday,
}- March 24, p. 10.

- , 1978,
- - - -Volume "Herd Law Draws Fire," Thursday, February 23,
99, Number 8, p. 2.

- , 1978, "Ranchers
- - - -Wash~ngton, Circulate Petition," Goldendale,
Thursday, March 23, p .. 1.

Gray, James R., 1968, Ranch Economics, Ames, Iowa, Iowa State
University Press.

Gum, Russell·L. and Martin, William S., 1977, "Structure of

Demand for Outdoor Recreation," Land Economics, Volume
5 3, Number 1, February,· pp. 4 3- 5.5.

Hait, Pam, 1977, "Arizona's Trust Lands: A Plum for Develop-

ers?" Planning, Volume 43, Number 11, December, pp.18-21.

Harns, Grant A., 1975, "Changing Philosophies of Rangeland

Management in the United States," Range Multiple Use
Management, Pullman, Washington, Cooperative Extension
Service, Washington State University,. February, pp. 1-8.

Heaqy, Harold F., 1975, Rangeland Management, New York,

McGraw-Hill. ·

Howard, James O., 1973, The Timber Resources of Central Wash-

ington, Portland, Oregon, U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service Resource Bulletin PNW-45 .

.i
 114.
Klickitat County Regional Planning Council, 1969, Klickitat
County Land Use Statistics, Goldendale, unpublished
report.

Krebs, Norbert, 1938, "Question: La Concept Paysage dans la

Grographie Humaine," Comptes rendus d. Cong. Intern.
d. Geogr., Amsterdam, Tome 2, Rapports, pp. 207-213.

Lane, Ted., 1964, "Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Evaluate

Open Space Recreational Projects," Project Open Space,
Vol. VI Report No. 30, Puget Sound Governmental Confer-
ence, Puget Sound Regional Planning Council, Seattle.

Marion County Planning Department, 1975, Rural Subdivision

Study, Salem, June.
May, Pete, 1977, "'Cattleking' Reigns First in Valley," The
Goldendale Sentinel, Livestock Improvement Supplement,
Thursday, March 24, 1977, pp. 3-4.

Mealor, W. Theodore, Jr. and Prunty, Merle C., 1976, "Open-

Range Ranching in Southern Florida," Annals of the Asso-
ciation of American Geographers, Volume 66, Number 3,
September, pp. 360-376.

Metsker's Atlas of Klickitat County, Washington, 1934, Port-

land, Charles F. Metsker Company.

Olson, Art, 1972, "Okanogan River Ranches," unpublished re-

port dated April 20, County Planning Department,
Ok~nogan, Washington.

~~~~-
, 1972, Destruction of the Land as a Resource, Un-
published report dated November 14, Okanogan County
Planning Department, Okanogan, Washi~gton.

Olson, Dennis, 1976, "Range vs. Residential Problems Grow-

ing," The Goldendale Sentinel, Thursday, May 13, 1976,
p. 3.

Olson, Ted, 1970, "Recreation Land Sales Growing in Klickitat,"

The (Portland) Oregonian, October 8, p. 34.

Page, Barbara Kerr, 1977, "The Land of Enchantment is also

the Land of Ripoffs," Planning, Volume 43, Number 5,
April/May, pp. 48-51.

Pease, James R. and Furuseth, Owen J., Ed., 1977, Proceedings,

Oregon State University Extension Service Semi-Annual
Training Session, Bend, Oregon, March 3-4, 1977.

Prunty, Merle Jr., 1955, "The Renaissance of the Southern

Plantation," The Geographical Review, Volume XLV,
Number 4, October, pp. 459-491.
 ~ ... ... "" + + ~ '!-'*-...... .. .,. ... ..,
~ .. ,i-~-<!!I!· ... -"'-.......- .... .._ ....... 'r ..... ... _ ...... .,,,

- - - -... ---~!!''I~-;.-+

115
Rice, Carl M., 1975, "The Range as Playground," Range Multi-
ple Use Management, Pullman, Cooperative Extension
Service, Washington State Universtiy, February, pp.
123-126.

l Reilly, William K. (ed), 1973, The Use of Land: A Citizen's

l Guide to Urban Growth, New York, Thomas Y. Crowell.

I Ryczek, Carol, 1977, "Herd Law Discussed," The Enterprise,

White Salmon, Washington, Thursday, February 10, 1977,
I i
p. 4.
!
Sampson, A. w., 1974, Range Management, Practices and Prin-
ciples, New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Standard Atlas of Klickitat County, Washington, 1913, Chicago,

George A. Ogle and Company.

Stearns, D. H., 1.876, Official Gazette~and Travelers and Im-

migrants Guide to Oregon and Washington Territory,
Portland, Oregon.

Superintendent of Schools, Klickitat County, n.d., Klickitat

County in Washington State, mimeographed, Goldendale,
Washington.

Wall, Geoffrey, 1977, Impacts of Outdoor Recreation on the

Environment, Monticello, Illinois, Council of Planning
Librarians, Exchange Bibliography 1363.

Washington State Department of Agriculture, 1954, Laws and

Regulations Relating to Livestock, Olympia~ State
Printing Plant.

, 1967; Washington Livestock, Olympia, State Print-

ing Plant.

Washington State Department of Revenue, 1973, Open Space Tax-

ation Act, Olympia, State Printing Offiqe.
S 3:;:)I GN3:d dV
 APPENDIX A

CHAPTER 16.24, REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON (RCW)

STOCK RESTRICTED AREAS
"I -~·-,~,. ..•.••• ~ ..

118

16.24.010 1\1·stril'lrcl arra.o; :rnthoriml. 111e board of coun·

ty commis..,.ioncrs of any county of this state shall have the power
to designate by an order m;:idc and published. ns pro\·icled in RC\V
lG.24.030, certain territory ;tS stock restricted area \vithin such
county in which it shall be unlawful to permit li\'cstock of any
kind to run at large: P1'o:-idcd, That no te1Titory so designated
shall be kss th;in two !='llli'lrc miles in :irca: And prot.:idcd further,
TIKlt new lG.2·1.010 through lG.2·l.OG5 shall not utTcct counties
havin;: adopted township organization. All territorv not so dcsig-
natcci !=hall uc ram;e arcJ., in which it !-=hall be lawful to permit
livestock to run at fargc. ·

16.24.020 Jrr:iring-i\"oti<-e. Within sixty days after the

taking effect of RC\V 16.24.010 through 16.2!1.065, the county
commissioners of each of the several counties or the state may
make an order fixing a·time and place when a hearing will be had,
notice of which shall be published at
least once each week for two
successive weeks in some newspaper having a general circulation
with'in the county. It shnll be the duty of the board 'or county
commissioners at the time fixed for such hearing, or at the time
~o which such hearing may be adjourned, to hear all persons in·
terested in the establishment of range areas or stock restricted
areas as defined in RC\V 16.24.010 throu¥h 16.24.065.

1G.24.030 Order cst:ihlishing arc:i-Puhlk:lfion. Within

thirty days after the conclusion of any such hearing the county
c9mmissioners shall make an order describing tl1e stock restricted
areas within the county where livestock may not run at large,
which order shall be entered upon the records of
the county and
puulished in a newspaper having &eneral circulation in such coun-
ty at least once each wc.ek for four successive weeks.

16.24.040 l\•11a1tr. Any person. or <my agent, employee

or reprer-cntnt i\'c cf a corporntion. \'iolating any of the provisions
of such order aftr.::· the same $hall ha\'c bcrn. published or posted
as previdcd in RC\\' lG.24.030, shall be· guilty of a misdemeanor,
and on con\'ictio:i thereof shall be punished by a fine Qf not less
than two doli:lr;;, nor more than ten dollars, for each offense, nnd
it shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of such county,
on complaint of any resident or freeholder of said territory, to
forU1wilh enforce.the provisions of this section.

1G.24.050 Chan~c or l1011ndarics. \\'hen the county' com-

missioners of any county deem it advisable to ~hangc the bound-
ary or boundaries of any stock restricted area, a hearing shall be
held in the same manner as provided in RCW 16.24.020. If the
county commi!=l'ioners decide to change the ·boundary or bound-
ariC's of any stock restricted area. or nreas, they shall wilhin thirty
days after the conclusion of such hearing make an order dcscrib-
in~ said change or changes. Such ordC'r shall be entered upo!l
the records o( the county and published in a newspaper having
general circulation in such county once each week for four sue·
ccssivc \\'eeks.
-l

119

16.2'1.060 Ro:icl ~i:.:-n~ in ran.i=<' arra.ci. At the point where

a puhlic road ('ntcrs a 1·an~e area. and at such other points thereon
within such al'ca as the- county commissioners ~hall des~gnatc.
here shall be cn~cted a road si1w bearing the words: "RANCE
AREA. WATCH Qt;T f'OR LI\'f:STOCK.."

16.24.0GS Stodc a.t large in arc:i~Cnlawful. No person

owning or in control of any livestock shall wilfully or ncglii;ently
allow such Ji\·estock to run at large in any i:tock restricted area,
nor shall any person owning or in control of any livestock allow
such livestock to wander or slrny upon the right-of-way of any
public highw<ty lying within a stock restricted area when not in
the charge of some person. ·

16.24.070 StoC'lc at Jar~e on high\\'ay right-of-w:iy-Un-

la.\\'fuI-Tmpouruling. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause
or permit any livestock to grnze or stray upon any portion of the
i-ight-of-way of any public highway of this state, within any stot:k
restricted area. It shall be unlawful for any person to herd or
move any }i\·cstock ewer, along or across the right-of-way of any
public highway, or PQrtion thereof, within any stock restricted
area, without having in attendance a sufficient number of persons
to control the mon?rnent of such li\'eStock and to warn or other-
wise protect \·r.hiclcs tr:\\"eling upon such public highway from
any danger by reason of such li\'cstock being herded or mo\•ed
thereon.
In the event tlrnt any Ji\'estock is allowC'd to stray or graze upon
tllc right-of-way of any public highway. or portion thereof, with-
in any stock restricted area. unattended, the same may be im-
pounded for safekeeping and, if the owner be not known, com-
pfaint may be instituted against such stock in a court of competent
jurisdiction. Notice shall be published in one issue of a paper of
general circulation published as close as possible to the location
where the Jil:estock were found, describing as nearly as possible
the stock, where found, and ·that the !'.lme nre to be sold. In the
C\'ent that the O\\iler appc;u·s and convinces tl1e court of his right
thereto, the stock may be delivered upon payn~Emt by him of all
cosl<; uf court, advertising and caring for the stock. In the e\'ent
no P<'rson claiming the right thereto shall Clppcar by the close of
businf'ss on the tenth day following and exclusive of the date of
publication of notice. the stock may be.sold at public or pri\'ate
sale, all costs of court, advertising and caring therefor paid from
the proceeds thereof and the ha lance certified by the judge of the
court ordering such sale, to the treasurer of the county in which
locntcd, to be crcdilccl to the county school fund.

16.24.090 Sn-in~ not pt'rmilfl.'d. :it Jar~~. The O\\il('f or

swine shall not allow them to run at large at any time or with.in
any territory, and <my \'iolntion of this section shall render such
owner liable to the penalties pro,·idcd for in RCW lG.2-1.0·lO:.
Prol'id<:ci, That swine may be driven upon the highways while in
or
charge suOicicnt atlcncl<tnts.
 APPENDIX B

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

I SAMPLE GRAZING LEASE

I
I
I
I
I
I 121

I
I
<I
STATE OF WASHINGTON •
•••• •
S.. E. OfflCE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
lert L. Cole
Commissioner of Public Lands -a ,. ms .
Ol)'Ulpia, Washington 98504
.,,· ·.~~" - _,p
~~.C:c
•.Ll ..· Cffir:!~ ..
Lease No. · EE& ' .. ...
:·· .... ··..
··:···
llY THIS LUSE, by and between the STATE Ol' WASHINGTON,. act:f.nS by and thro1:1gh
· ~.• Depart~nt of Natur~l' Resou:ces, hereinafter called the State, a n d - - - - - -

bereinafter called Lessee, the State leases to c:'le Lessee the follo\ling described
land, in County, \ola&hington, on the tenu and
· conditions stated herein, to vit:
·,:··.
· . . . NE!HG. Sectl~ a. Tamshrp e Horth, Rang• S East, W.K., ··
contalnln51 Ito ec!"as, 1110re or less, a~rdl~g to tho s_ov~r~t •urvey ~reof •

SECTION 1 OCCUPANCY

1.01 !!!:!!· This lease sh~ll· co111111e~~e· on·~~ • ..fU-.day of .:..-Jen~P,<--·--· 19~, '
and continue to the --1s..t_ day of ---"s>.cl~• l9Js~..;_· .
... .. .
1.02 Renewal. The Lessee shall have the right, to t:hc extent: prov1.ded by h~. to apply·
tor a ~e of ~he preaisea •. ··
. : '" ':" .;•:· .·.... :·-.. ·•i<.
~ ·• . .. .
. ~. · ·'- -
. ~ . ... ~ .. ;. ..·:.tSECTION
;. :::.. ; .
~ ~
2
USE OF l'R.EKI.SP.S
. .
':,, . :.;•. . ~ .=;.' ·: .:
2.01 Permitted Use: The Lessee shall have use of the premieE:B for!'
(1) ~O acres grazing
-· acres for the Hi.sing of aidcultural erop11
.m
· · (2)

· (S)
:~!:: . . . .........-:..: - ... .: .'.
acres for the ra1s1n6 of crops aPd all crops pi:oduced nT1all
,,. r.~~ared and distl"ibuce.:. on the basis of the followS.nP.,percenca11<rn. Stace_ ~%•
-ar.:1 !.tlssee - %. · · ·
• I•' • • • #'l. ~. •.
SECTION 3 1EN1°AL"

3.ul ~- the Lessee shall pay to the ·State at Olympia, Washington ·9c501,, in.
advance, the nqu1red rental of $.so no · for. the period of
____Jan11•ry t • 19~, to Apdl 1 l!>_ru;;_,
end $SO.CO every fh• years for tho romalnlng t•l"IR of thfs lcao~.
l 122

SECTtON 4 R.ESERVATlONS

4.0l Compliance. ·The State sh:ill have acccsA to the premises at all reasonable
t1111es for the purpose of securing compliance with_. the terlllS and conditions of this
lease, .• : · · •

4.02 Access. The State reserves the right ~o access to and· across the leasehold
preaiis~all purposes and further reserves the righr. to grant easements and
other land uses on the pre11tises to others when the ease sents or other land uses
applied for will not unduly interfere vith the use to which the Lessee is putting
the premises, or interfere unduly with the approved plan of development for the

I
premises. No easement or other Lan!! uses shall be granted to third parties until
damages ta. the leaseholder have, been paU to the teusee or a waiver signed by the
Lessee. If the agreement cannot be reached between the Lessee and the applicant
for easement. or ocher land uses wherein the applicant does noc have the power of
condemnation, the State shall &3certa1n the just compensation payable co the Lessee

I by the applic•nt.

4.03 Public: Hunting. All-·State lands leased for grazfog or agricultural purposes
shall be open and a,vaUable co the public: for purposes of hunting and fishing unless
closed to public entry becau:se of: .
(1) Fire hazard; •

I t2) lt being necessary to close. the area to avoid uodue. interference vi.th the
carrying forwa-rd of a de.partinental or ageru:y program;
(J) The Lessee having been given specific written approval by the. Department
of Matural Resources to lawfully post the area to prohibit hunting and fishing
thereon in order to protect: (a) crops, (b) ocher land cover, (c) improvements on
the land, (d) livescoclt, (e) the Lessee, (f) the general public.

4.0t, Management. The State reserves the right to enter upon the leased premises to
11D.naee ar..<! :;ell the fore:st or mineral resources; Lessee shall be entitled to tJ&yment
for damages co crop:J or authorized l.aprove11ence; and any reduction in the. productive
capacity of the land - y be cause for a rental adjustment; such damages and adjustcient'
shal~ be detenained by the State and the B111ount of the adjusc:::ent shall be final.

4.05 Restrictions on Use. In connection with use of the premises the Lessee shall:
(1) Conforz:a to applicable laws and regulations of any public authority
affecting the premises and the use thereof and correct at the Lessee' 11 own expense
any failure of compliance created through the Lessee's fault or by reason of the
Le:u;ee 's use: ·
(2) Re1110ve no valuable aaterial or cue no trees vithout prior written consent
of the State;·
(3) Take all reasonable precautions to protect the leased area from fire and ·
to m.ake every re:i3on:1ble effort to report and suppress such fires as may •ffect the
leused area. ~
(4) Have any electric: fencer used on the premises approved by and have. a seal
of the 1Inden1riter::1 Laboratories, No electric fencer containing the weed chopper
feature will be permitted; - .
. (5) Noc allow debris or refuse to accumulate ou the leased prembes, caused
either by himself, oc any person authorized on the premises by the Lessee. Failure
to comply vith this provision may penait the Stata to remove the debris and refuse
and collect the cost of such removal from the Lessee and/or cancel this lease;
· • (6) Notify the State and local authorities immediately i f refuse or debris
accumulates on the lea:;ed preaises as the result of actions of trespassers or per-
sons permitted on the premises by the provision of Section 4.03. Failure to comply
with this sectio1\ shall cause the debris accumulation to be the responsibility of
the Lessee as set fortf1 in Sub-Section (S). .
(7) In the exercise of the rights granted by this instrument, the Lessee. agrees
to abide by the Lessor'u Re:sourcc Management Operating Specifications in effect at the
time of execution of thl:i leuse, ·subsequent changes in specifications necessary to
reasonably protect soil and.water will be. 111ucually-•greed·upon. Costs for subsequent
ch<inges· uUl be borne by the Lessee. · •
If ihe two parties fail to agree u to the changes in specifications necessary, a
three ialmber co111Jnittee will be formed. Said co111111ittee to be made up of one member
appoinced by the Leiuiee, one member appointed by the Lessor and one Dlember co be
appointed by the two aforementioned. The decision of the committee will be fin:il end
b1nd1n3 01\ all parties,
I
I 123

I
I

SECTION 5 llEQUIR~TS ·

5.01 Assign111ent and Sublease. This lease or any portion thereof may not be aui&ned,
1110rcgaged, sublet or othervise transferred without the prior written consent of the
Stace. With such consent the State reserves the right ·co c:han;e the ter111s and condl-
tions of this lease as it may affect the assignee. Further, if the Lessee ahall be
a corpora;lon or partnership and if at eny tillle during the. tor• of this lease any
part or all of the corporate shares or parcnerahl~ interests of the Lessee shall be
transferred by· sale, assignment, bequest, inheritance, operation of law, or other
disposition so as to result in a change 1n the present control of the lease hy the
person or persons now owning a majority of the corporate ahare .. or change in the
holding of the partnership interesta, the transfer shall be daeaed aa requiring an
asaigm>ent. • . . .

5.02 Duty. The Lessee, at his sol~ coat and expen.sa, shall at ~11 times keep or cause
all laprove-nts (regardless of ownership) to be kept in as good condition and repair
as originally constructed or as hereafter put, except for reasonable current wear and
tear. In all cases, the premises and illlprovementa shall be 1141ntained at a standard
acceptable to th• industry. The State -y require the Lessee to carry insurance of
types and in amounts auff!cleut to protect illlprove1Rents on the leased pre1111ses. Any
auch requiresaent bzposed will be given to the Lessee in vriting.

5.03 Con~itiou
"of ~~~~es. a~d· t~ability.
The pr-1.ses by the
Lessee ~ are accepted in their present condition. Lessee will protect. save and
hold hanaless the State, its authorized agents and employee:!:, fro111 all claims; coaca 0
damages or expenses of any nature whatsoever arising out of or in coDDcction with 0
the use of the leased premises. Further the Lessee vill be responolble for the
payment of any fines or peoalties charged against the preaieea as a result of hia
action 1n not C0111plying with lava or regulations affec:tio& the prr.mUes.

5.04 Assessments. The Lessee shall pay all the annuai'.paynienta on all a~acssme~~s
that may be legally charged on public: lands or the lease whether or not such asse.·s-
mencs have been levied against the leasehold or the State by the. aasettaing agency.

S.OS Insolvency of Lessee. If the Lessee bec:otRes lns;,lvenc, bankrupt, the receiver
appointed, or his interest ia transferred by operation of. law, the StllCft IMY cancel.
this lease at its option. -. Insolvency as used her·ein will ae.an the ituability of the
Lessee to meet obligations as they come due.
" ......... . .
- · SECTION 6 MISCELLANF.OUS

6.01 No Partnership. The State is not a partuer nor a jniut vent.urnr. ·,;1th the U~see
in c:onnec:tion vlth the business carried on under this lease and ahall have no obligacion
vith respect to cha Lessee's debts or other liabilities. • · . :· ·.~ •

6.02 Non•Vaive;. Vaiv~r· ~y ei·t;:;,~·party

of strict per~o~m~n~~··o~ -~~ pr~~i~1o~·~f
this lease shall not be a waiver of nor prejudice the. parcy'a riahc to require 11trict
performance of the same provision in the future or o! any other piovinlon.
. . •. _.. :· -~· ... : r:
6.03 Attorney Fees. If auit or action is instituted in connection with 11ny contro-
versy arising out of this lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
in addition to costs such sua as the court 'may adjudge reasona.blc ao actorney feea.
. •. . . : ·. ,. . . . . .. J
6.04 Succession. Subject to. the limitations as stated in paragr11ph S.Ol on trans'fec'
0

of the Lessee's interest, this lease shall be bindJ-ns upo11 and inure. to thebenefit
of the parties, their respective successors and .a111igna •

. 6.05 ~ • Any notice required or per.itt~d

under this leas~· sfui~"i
be gi;,e11 ~hen
actually delivered or when deposited in the United States m3il addressed as follo"Ws:
To the State: Department of Natural Resources, Public: Lands Buildi.ng, Olympia, Wash-
ington 98504. To the Lessee: At the addresa given by the Lessea in the signature
block or as shovn on later official documents of record vith this lease.
I 124
I
I
I
~.06 Liens.
(T}No person shall h;ive the rtgh.t to file or place any lien of any kind or•
.:h.u;icter upon the land O"C' improvements within the leasehold premises vithout the
prior written consent of the Scace. ·
(2) In the event liens or other charges are placed on the leasehold precises.
including land or improvements. arising out of the Lessee's actions directly or ill-
directly the Lessee shall i111111ediately cause such liens or charges to be discharged.
The St::ite may forthwith cancel thb lease if Lessee fails to discharge such liens
or c~· ::;es after ten days' notice to do so by the Stace. The Lessee shall pay and
indemnify tha State for all costs, damages or charges of whatsoever nature. includ-
ing attorne::s' fees, necessary to discharge such liens or charaes, whether such costs,
ca.u1agea or charges are incurred prior or subsequent to any cancellation of this lease.

6.07 Default. If the Lessee shall violate or default any of the covenants aad
agreeme~tained herein, including the obligation to pay renc, then the Sc.ate
may cancel this lease provided that the Lessee has been notified of the violation
oi default fifteen days priof to such cancellation and such violation or default
ba1&" not been corrected within auch time. Upon such cancellation the Stat• shall
have the right to re-enter said premises, but notvithscanding such cancellation
the State aha.11 be entitled to recover the next year's rent. together with all
costs arising out of the re-entry, and if occurring a reletting of the preci.ises.·
Io the event the State elects to cancel this lease, all improvcments and crops
located thereon shall become the property of the State of Washington.

6.08 Stace'!l'Righc to Cure Defaults. .

(1) If the Lessee !:'.ails to perforaa any requirement or obligations under this
lease, the State shall have the option to cor-recc the obligation of the lease afte-r
!1fteeo days' vcitten notice to the Lessee. All of the Stace'• e.•:penditures to co-rrect
the default shall be reimbursed by the Lessee on demand with interest at the rate of
1 percent per month accrued fro111 the date of e'xpenditure by the State.
(2) Io the event any ttolation or breach of the provisions of this lease b
causing damage to the leasehold prl!lllises or the Lessee is utilizing the lea,.ehold
premises in a manner not permitted by the provisions of this lease, or in any
case daaaages are occurring to the leasehold prelllises. the State may immediately enter
upon the leasehold premises and take such actio11 as necessary to cease such da:::ages
or use. In the event the damage or use is occurrina by reason of a violation or
breach of the provisions of this lease, the Lessee shall be liable for all costs
incurred by the State by reasons of auch violations. Tue State, at its option. may
send notice to the Les:iee of suc:h violations and the Lessee shall .lmaiotdiately cease
such use o~ violation and correct and remedy such violations.

6.09 Leasehold Taxes. If dut"ing the term of this lease the laws relating to the
imposition of lea:sehold taxes levied on leaseholds on publicly owned land are changed;
or where the county in which the leasehold is located imposes a leasehold tax on this
leasehold where it has not imposed such taxes before; or "here the general basis of
determining the tax ch;inges due to compliance by the various counties vith existing ·
law relating to the taxing of such leasehold, aud the appraisal by the deparci::eut of
the fair mack.et value of the lease is based upon the fact no such tax is imposed, or
on a general basis different than thae required by existing law; the rental required
hereln shall be adjuste<l by the State to the extent such change:il affect the fair rental
value. Nothing herein shall, however, require a change in the rent solely because of
• change in the rate or amount of taxation in such fair rental value.

6.10 Weed Control. The Lessee shall:

(l) Control weeds on tilled lands by cultivation, clipping, spraying, or burn-
. ing as recom.men<led by the local county agent or veed district and to a standard accept.-
able in the locality.
(2) Control noxious weeds on the leased premises as directed by the local
County Weed Control Board or shall be responsible for reimbursing said Board for
their control JDeasures,

6.11 Agricultural Lands. The Lessee shall conform vith all United States Covernnent
cereal grain regulations now iu effect or that may be hereafter put into effect to
allow the State to obtain any Federal payments related to cereal grain production. If
the Lessee does not have a wheat history for the premises, wheat will not be grololll.

.The Leiiaee furthet agrees to 111aintain his nonial conserving acres. The Lessee furthec
rees not to exceed his feed grain base or his barley base unless a variance is grant

2 the State. If these terms are violated, the State reserves the right to cancel the
ase, to collect damages. and/or to take such action as necessary to bring the crops
'on State lands vithin the allowances of the above-mentioned restrictions.

6.12 Higher and Better Use. This lease is subject to C3ncellation upon sixty days'
written notice in the event the area c~red thereby is included in a plan of develo;>
inent to a higher and better use. Provided; however, the lessee vill be allO\oled to us
t~~. premises for the re111ainder of the current grazing season or to harvest the grovi~
crop ••
I 125

I
I
SECTION 8 OPnATI01i or PRfJiIS!S

8.01 this land •hall be sanaged in a huabandl1ke manner according to atandl\rds Acceptable
to tha industry.

S!CTIOM 9 IMPltOVIHENTS
. .
9.01 Unauthorized Iamrovementa. All improveaenta 111ada on or to the premiaea 'llithout the
written consent of th• St.ate ahall immediately become tha property of the State.

9.0l Authorized Improve:senta. the ilaprovementa of the Lessee, as defined by RCW 79.01.036.
ori or to the leued preat.ea, together vith the value beyond which auc·, improvelflCntl nay
not hereafter be appra1nd, aa provided by Jlal 79.01.092, are noted below. lfo further
improveaents are hereafter alloved without the express consent of the State given in
writing. ·

Hone.

the Lessee exprescly agrees to all covenants herein and bind• hi111self for the payment of
the reotal hereinbefore specified. .

.. ~.
-PJ:_ day of
Executed this
~
. ~ .<
..
=""?' • 1)7-_6.
: . . .. C/~
STATE OF \lASHINCTON
DEPAATMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By~/ ~
JER.T l.. COLE
Co!""'1Hioncr .of Public Lands

Signed thia _ _ day of • 19_. _ _ _ __

By~

.,
App. Ho. el1ilf
=-- TITle *Lessee

Address

*If Y.esaee 1a a corporatiol\,· complete Certificate of Acknovledgement on reverse side.

LK-29-S .
12/28/'1
.,

I
I
I
I APPENDIX C

STATE (DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES) LAND

LEASES IN KLICKITAT COUNTY

SAMPLE PAGE FROM COUNTY ASSESSOR'S RECORDS

!
1

I 127
I
I
I
.ffE LAND LEASES IN FORCE lN •••- ..•.~.l.l.C.U.tA.1 .•••••-....COUNTY. JANUARY, l'L.1.6.•
NAM£, AOORESS, AND• OESCl'llPTION MHT,q,
NO. DATE OF lEASI! (JtPIRATION OATf
IOO. OF ACRES. ~Of'UASE

!i
.97 l ftQUERT £. EDBERG j
!}~~ ~ltt~~.o~l~iF. 93065
i
t ~LL S3Cio Tb, Rl9E
67~0 SHAR:CROP l3. t4i
05-01-69 - 09-0l-78 i
513~0 CiRAZ WC. 1791\)6
ACU RfNTo GRASS PAYH!NT
6"d,oCJ 179 iObT
i IMPROVEHENTS CWN~O dY LESSEE
ll i
i:
:
~f ~~E~o~~~~"~~l ~~c
PROS5~Rt
ALL ~lb1
WA. 99350
TOoNo k2~€.
!
I

220~0 C.PAZlNG
SHAf\ ~CROP 23 .11oi
O~-Ol-13 • 09-01-63
68 !n
'tZO~O
61oo;co 68 j15~
.42
:
THOHAS L• ENY~~~T i
I
:isklo ACRlCt;LTURE
.!;!>~O Cl<Al.lM.
P.O. eox ei<J6
G(~~N S~OkeSo WA 98jb~
E2SW41 S~}-~l!b~l~E~l-Ol-l~
iso!oo
13 :7!1
I

!
aopo lHPROV~~EHT~ 163 ! 7'T
OWNED 8Y LESSEE
i:
lt3
~fll~~E~~n~~rr 0 t
I
. I
~6~i~Tbi~Ewf~·9u944 I
I
NE4SW~o NlS~4aS16oT6oK21C I
09-Ul-69 - 09-0l-7~
62il5 GP.AZ lll:G 9!36
57t>2 • AGRlCUl TUR£ 31t5:7Z
120:00 3S5 j09T
HIPKOV£HENTS OkC~ED SY LESSEE
!
15'9

I
bZc.'.co
l'otH)
CRAllNC
AGk 1CVL TUFIE.
"AX READ
f tfK~il~Nf 4~AR~?~~Z
09-01-69 - 09-01-79
.
·156 !so
't2!00
!
198 :!iOT
61t0r0 IHPROVEKENTS OWNEO BY LESSES i
·It~ KEITH KAYSER !
! 2~~f ~K~ftfg~ ~l 9861J
6

i
i
! NW'to_ 536 1
{0!~~!1~ ~E10-01-s3
76 iaa
in~& GRAilNG
26.8't:C
SHA~i:Cl<OP
16 iaar
16000
lHPROVtMENTS OWNfO OY LESSEE I

~ !'111
I! L• OON NAllGHT
SUR ROUTE
etthLETUN, WA 99322
EZN~4ocZSW~~~E4,Sl6tT5eK20t
i ·.
r
_uq-01-6~ - u~-ul-7~
275~C, GAAllNG e2!1d
'94;l t. I.CR 1 t:l.il. TURAL lll ! 30
320f-JO 21s :oar
IMPJ\OVHIENTS OWN-ED BY LESS!;!:
I
jc;s I
: ~~~I~! erLi~~bE~. 0 ?~~~~
A~O MARGA~ET lH~tE !l
! UU>. 6~

!· ROOStVELT,
S2o S36o Ht R l8t
WA 99356
10-ul-od - 09-01-76
!
j·.
212bo SHl.RE:CRCP 26.Bltt
lO!SCO GR.t.l.H:G 86:"0
116 l"iOT
34:0r0

:
HIPROVE lttNTS UkNED 8Y LE~SEE
l
:
i
I

I
I
I
i APPENDIX D

ASSESSOR'S RECORDS OF LAND CLASSIFIED AS RANGELAND

(SAMPLE PAGE)
 O'J;= 1···
'l:fY'~n
·-·-hb l· ... ·-·. . . . ·yl-l"2J~11~
--- . Cj1f !
oc~
·~
-z..9 s "'JC ~o~1jY
01?°} -,-rv s-c· ·: . ~Q1iJ_)1
oyq . {}\/ v-c ::lHJ~101~711
ss~ JpMN/ >pf'('f(
-~~~ . . -_ wy~~YL
pMC'i
..
-z..3 -e-e s --~=e··- ~-~)fl
b">p '1'1>t/ .-e-c-- ·-:-·. 5----- --c--c -w·-v~w
-·- QyO) -- ··~-11 . ... ~N'J~n~·
-c:: c · · · .s ·-·· -·--·Te___
sBJ; · "rPt1 -c-c' - -- s· ·-·· -oc-·-· ~oorn~­
op. . ;r<>r1 . . . . . -- ----- -- . °} '1'~~-
Vb'CC.b pM~ff8/-z3 .s ·--1j-- 'Q~Tmn~jf~i
bb°C-Cz .s BJ . ~'~-,~
Oc~ . •. . - . ~NJST)~'
.s . -i. f ~)1't" 'N:aslVJ1
01 9~ ~~~m
0-C 9 f'() ""
Qll) j:>~
-~~.-~---~:· r:~.'~-
. ~ - .. --- ---·-··· ··--·- ·-.
---- ··-
51 ~MN
OJ ?~ ----_- - - - .- ··}f*(1rj3siiji
O'G"' .p3N ·· -·-· ···· ··------ 1
·in rl'f(I,Ufw·
o~ i.rnr-.J/l-::1t1 ·· · ·· -- ··-· ----- ~ N ·1rOSJ.vff
Opp. vMSj.,-;JSji,M(1/~?lf .. . . . ~- . ·- . -- - - - ~'11)1 1~(1
G-c ~ t2N· - ... -- . - ----- - . fM~JQ~t(
SI ~ ?~N -ce ... . -.s· _-· . --- s y--- -~ ~~9tfj
OP.p 1/Y1Jj/p3}4:1N -e-e s ~.~~C~.. >.,_:/;f1~}<ii;?rl
b<i ") -n-:v "C~ 5 ~1 -$1t1~1 7itl
op" -rrv -e -c s, -CJ ~~ ~119))1
O?" :., 1 11 -c~ s· _11 ~5M~Q 1~iPW
1
<2S-C ) -1. 01 ~ ~ru W rU>WJY
Ob£ ~~3-);;i -C""C' S 0) ~9Q~1}7'
o~ .,~~ -ec s . . ·. - b -·~· J\~.rnrr'~wj1··-
o ") J .p~ - ·- ··---------
oe~ -zf'I -cc :::&·-~- ----<J- -1_::n1ytfrac:::wyy
oc . · ,,?S .. · ·· - - - - - - - -·r·r--1JD?t·cr:ry
-ec.s "/{.r:<1Njt/1NJ,-·1-rr<l -c-c ~ ·· ···-·· --- f-- '>~1 'lt 1taf,Jv·rr
..r.Yo
:f#. NoJJ4~{t'(;> jerv~l . t1 1 i;~~-. o,_L;"";;;s -··--;.i-;U.ri\o-
 I
t
I
I
I
I
1-a XIGNadd\l
I
I
I
I
 131
I
I
I

I
Klickitat County Ranqe Parcel lzation Survey - Ranchers
I
In recent years rangeland in Klickitat County has been increasingly divided
into smaller and smal fer ownerships. A large number of five, ten, and twenty
I acre parcels have been purchased for recreation and homesite purposes.
The County Is trying to determine the effect this may have on the livestock
industry. Increasing numbers of complaints about livestock tresspass, vehicle/
animal accidents, rustling, and herd law petitions are examples. Your assist-
I ance by completing this survey is appreciated. Your answ~rs wi II be kept
confidentfal. You do not have to sign the survey. The C3ttleman's Association
and the Board of County Conmissioners are aware of this survey. This survey Is
self-addressed and stamped. Just fold and ma! I. Thank you!
I. How many acres (approximately) do you own? ------acres
2. How many acres do youlease ;br grazing? acres

3. How long have you or your family been on your ranch? years

4. What is the average number of cattle I sheep you have? _ _ __

5. Do you have separate summer and winter range areas?

<_ _ _ )yes (_ _ >no

6. If yes, would you describe them generally (such as Glenwood Valley,

Township/Range, Simcoes, etc> and give rough owned/leased acreage?
a.SullYller Location~------------------------~
Acres
~--------------------~

b.Winter location.~------------------------~
Acres~-------------------
7. What method do you use to move your livestock?
( )truck
(---)"cattledrive"
<==:=>combination

8. Have you experi'enced any problems with new people moving into range
areas?
( )yes
<==:=>no, If no skip to question I I~

9. What type of problems do you attribute to the new residents7 (may check
more than one)
( )petitions for "herd laws"
<====:>unfamiliar with range law and traditions
<~___ )fencing problems
<_ _ >they c Iaim I i vestock is tresspass i ng on their property
<_ _ >running cattle without proper grazing le~ses
(___lsuspecfod rustling or bu1:chering cattle
<_ _ >other Cipecify>~---~-------------.-----------------~

<_ _)the new property owners have not caused any problems.
l

I
I 132

I
I

10. Do you think that these new residents are affecting you as a cattleman,
economically?
( )yes ( )no
=====~~~-------~----~--~--~--------~--------------
If yes, How? __

II. Do "herd laws" (stock restricted areas) place an economic burden upon
cattleman?
(_ _ )yes c___ >no
If yes, How? ____~--------------~--------~-----------------------

12. Are there any particular Instances of problems with new property owners
that you would like to mention?

13. How can these problems be P.revented?

Although the results of this survey wl II be confidential, you may

wish to attach your name, address, phone number, and comments If you
have specific problems concerning your property with which we may
be able to assist you. Just fold this survey so that the address
and stamp are to the outside, tape or staple It closed, and mall.

Thank you for your assistance.

Kl lckitat County Planning Dept.

P. 0. Box 268
Goldendale, WA 98620
-

I
I
I
I APPENDIX E-2

I PURCHASER QUESTIONNAIRE - ACTUAL FORMAT AS MAILED

I
1

I 134

I
I
KLICKITAT COUNTY RANGE PARCELIZATION SURVEY - PURCHASERS

Your name has been selected from County records as having purchased a parcel(s) of
land 20 acres in size or smaller in Klickitat County sometime during 1974-1978.
Your cooperation is solicited in completing the following questionnaire. The ma-
terial herein is confidential and will not be released in a form permitting identity
of individual resp0ndents. This survey is self-addressed and stamped. Just fold
and mail. Thank you!

I 1. Which one of the following describes the current status of the property you pur-
chased: Check one
( . ) still own all of the land

I c===:>still own some, have sold some

( )sold all of the land
<~>other (repossessed, turned back to the developer, etc.)
Please answer the following questions if you still own property.
2. How many acres do you own? _ _acres
3. What year did you purchase your land? 19_ _

4. If you bought more than one parcel, how many? _ _ parcels

5. Did you see your property before before you purchased it? c__)yes (_ _)no
6. Was a land division involved with your purchase~ that is, was your parcel sold out
of a larger piece of property? (_ _)yes (_ _)no <~~>don't know

7. How did you buy your property?

( )directly from the land owner
,--}throu9h a local realtor
(====)from a land development company
8. What facilities were existing on the land when you bought it?
( ) septic tank ( ) well .( ) house or mobile home
(==)other (specify) -- --
9. What services were readily available for 'hookup' at your property?
( )electricity ( )community water system ( )telephone
( )other (specify) -- --
10. What sort of access do you have to your property?
.<__~directly onto a county road or state highway
( )private road {serving a number of lots)
(====)private easement (serving only a few lots)
11. How would you describe your access road?
( )good construction and maintenance
(--)fair construction and maintenance
,--)poor construction and maintenance
(~)primitive road or trail
12. Is your property located in an open range area?
(_ _}yes (_ _)no (_~)don't know

13. bid the person you purchased the property from mention open range, grazing leases,
"herd laws" or related subjects to you before you purchased the property?
(__. _)yes {_ _)no (_ _)don't remember
14. Have you had concerns or problems with grazing livestock on your property or access
roads? If so, please describe:~~-~~~~-·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
 135

15.What was your ma.in reason for purchasing this property? (You may wish to check
more than one)
( )permanent home ( )camping, hunting, etc.
,--)retirement home (--)investment ( )recreation/second home
( . )other (specify) -- --
16. Which would best describe your present use of your property?
( )permanently occupied ( )only occasionally
(...:___)weekends and vacation ( )rarely or never visit
17. If you do not now permanently occupy your property, which would best describe
your future plans for it, say in five years?
(_ _)permanently occupy ( )use occasionally
c__)use weekends and vacations ( )never visit/sell or hold for investment
18. ·Areyou sat1sfieci with your property?
(_ _)yes {_ _)no
If no, why? (may check more than one)
( )too small ( )too expensive ( )developer ha~ not p~ovided the
f~ities or servic~ndicated when prope~was purchased ( )utilities
too expensive ( )site not suitable for septic tank ( )impractical to
orill wall. ( )excessive slope/steep lot ( )lot has not increased in
value fo~ investment purposes (_ _)other (explain)~-----~----~

19. Do you now live in, or have you ever lived in, Klickitat County?
(_ _)yes <_ _)no
20. How many persons (your inunediate family) live ··n your Klickitat County property
or visit the property occasionally? <~_·)number

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! Although the results of this survey will be confiden-
tial, you may wish to attach your name, address, phone nwnber, and cormnents if
you have specific problems concerning your property with which we may be able
to assist. you. JUST FOLD SO THAT THE ADDRESS AND STAMP ARE TO THE OUTSIDE,
TAPE OR STAPLE IT CLOSED, AND MAIL.

KLICKITAT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.·

P. 0. BOX 268
GOLDENDALE, WA 98620
E-3 XION3dd'i
 137

Klickitat County Range Parcellzation Survey -·Realtors

The County has received numerous complaints regarding open range livestock.
grazing from recent purchasers of rural lots. Your experience with this
type of problem.would be much appreciated. Your answers wi I I be kept con-
fidential. The answers will be used In tabular form only. This survey Is
se If-addressed and stamped. Just fo Id and ma I I. Thank you!
I. Are you familiar with open range traditions and laws?
<_ _ >yes <_ _>no

2: Have any of your clients mentioned any open range livestock grazj.ng
problems on their property?
<_ _)yes <_ _ >no, If no, skip"to question 6
3. Approximately how many such complaints have your heard? cumber

4. What was the main problem(s)7

<_ _ >I lvestock "tresspassing" on their property
(_ _ >fencing
<_ _ ) I i
vestock on roadways
(_ _)Other (specify) ________________________

5. Wou I d you g I ve an examp I e ( s >__________________________

6. What seems to be the main method property owners use to try to resolve
the problem?
C )confront the rancher
<==:==>fence his property
<_ _ )petition rfor a herd I aw
<_ _)just complain - no action.
<____>Other (specify)~-------------------------------~

7. Do you inform your clients about open range traditions?

<_ _)yes
<_ _ )no

8. Which would describe your attitude about range resident problems?

<_ _ >not serious enough to worry about
<_ _ )a concern that can be handled by proper information to the purchaser
<_ _ )something shou Id be done to a 11 evate the prob I em

9. What do you, as a realtor, think of"the~followin~·potentials for

resolv~ng open range disputes?
( )like ( )dislike. establishment of h.erd laws
c====:>like c==:==Jdisl ike. maridltory fencing of subdivisions and short plats
<_ _)like (_ _ )disll·ke. notification of range status in the title report
<_ _ >Ii ke C._ _ )disl i ke. prepare a booklet concerning range ·traditions
to be given to purchasers by realtors .
 138

10. Do you have any other suggestions on how to prevent conflict between
ranchers and new residents?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments

Thank you for your assistance. J~st fold this survey so that the
address and stamp a"9 to the outside, tape or staple it closed,
and ma I I •

Klickitat County Planning Dept.

P. 0. Sox 268
Goldendale, WA 98620
T-a: XIGN:!fddV
l

I 140

I
I
TABULATION

KLICKITAT COUNTY RANGE PARCELIZATION SURVEY

RANCHERS

1. How many acres (approximately) do you own 1740 acres

(average) (Answers ranged from 379 to 6250 acres)

2. How many acres do you lease for grazing? 2883 acres

(average) (Answers ranged from 0 to 12,362 acres)

3. How long have you or your family been on your ranch?

40 years (average) (Answers ranged from 2 to 90+
years)

4. What is the average-£umber·of cattle /·sheep you have?

152 (average) (Answers ranged from 50 to 400 cattle/
sheep) .

5. Do you have separate summer and winter range areas?

( _7_) yes ( _ _9 ) no

6. If yes, would you describe them generally (such as Glen-

wood Valley, Township/Range, Simcoes, etc.) and give rough

owned/leased acreage?

a. Summer location: Plateau S. of Glenwood; Major Creek;

TS Rll; T3 & 4 Rll & 12; Mt .. Adams Area

Acres: 11; 162; 400; 13,000; 3230; 2200

b. Winter location: High Prairie; T3 Rll & 12; Lyle Area

Acres: 3040; 2000; 3860.; 2000

1·. What method do you use to move your livestock?

5 ) truck

- -2 - ) "cattledrive"

- -8 - ) combination
 141
8. Have you experienced any problem with new people moving

into range areas?

13 J yes
1 ) no

9. What type of problems do you attribute to the new resi-

dents? (may check more than one)

petitions for "herd laws"

\
- 10
- -)
I
l
(
(
--
--
10
12
unfamiliar with range law and traditions
fencing problems

I (

(
11

2
they claim livestock is trespassing on their
property.
running cattle without proper grazing leases
I ( 7 suspected rustling or butchering cattle
{ 8 other. (number in parenthesis indicates number of
simi~ar responses)

people won't accept resonsibility for fences/

closing gates (4); chase cattle (2); tear down
signs (l); don't take care of livestock (1);
trespassing (l); cut fences (2); let air out of
tires (1); shoot holes in gas/oil tanks (1);
destroy livestock feed (1); move coyotes toward
livestock (1); don't build fences (1).
the new property owners have not caused any
- -0 - ) problems.

10. Do you think that these new residents are affecting you

as cattlemen economically?

12 ) yes no
- -0 -)
If yes, How? (number in parentheses indicates number of

similar responses):
; breaking land into small parcels thereby taking it out
1·
i
of grazing land (5); raising production costs (l); cow

and calf losses (2); harassment of cattlemen (1); no

respect for animals, fences, or soil (2); scatter cattle

on range (1); rustling (2); caused to subdivide/sell out(l).

 142
11. Do "herd laws" (stock restricted areas) place an economic

burden upon cattleman?

15 ) yes no
- -0 -)
If yes, How? (number in parentheses indicates number of

similar responses):

cost of fencing (8); trouble with trespassing (1); removes

land from grazing (3); liability shifted to cattleman (5);

open range is a must for farmers/ranchers to exist (1).

12. Are there any particular instances of problems with new

property owners that you would like to mention? (number

in parentheses indicates number of similar responses):

dogs causing calving problems (1) ; not suitable for sep-

tic tank installation (l); no access roads (3); poor

quality access roads (1); new owners cause traffic pro-

blem (1); new owners cause "junk heap" (1); trespassing

(l); started range fire (l); vandalism & theft (l);

chasing cattle (l); no fences (2); buyers unaware of

ranching problems (1) .

13. How can these problems be prevented? (number in paren-

theses indicates number of similar responses): ".get rid

of" realtors (l); "limit" or bond realtors (1); make

realtors responsible for access roads/septic tank app-

roval (l); have road department sherriff's office check

on developments (l); fence all subdivisions (l); cattle

guards on county roads (1); meet neighbor half way (1);

educate buyers concerning pertinent laws (1) ; close

(vacate) herd law districts (1).

z-a XIGN:3:ddV
 144

TABULATION

KLICKITAT COUNTY RANGE PARCELIZATION SURVEY

PURCHASERS

1. Which one of the following describes the current status

of the property you purchased:
68 ) still own all the land (94%)
4 ) still own some, have sold some (6%)
--
0 ) sold all of the land (0%}
0 other (repossessed, turned back to the developer,
--) etc.) (0%)

Please answer the following questions if ydu still own

property.

2. How many acres do you own?

Average (mean) = 10.24 acres
Median = 5.5 acres
Range of answers = 2 to 80 acres

Range Breakdown:
2 to 2.9 acres = 6 respondents
3 to 3. 9 acres .. = 12 respondents
4 to 4.9 acres = 9 respondents
5 to 5.9 acres = 15 respondents
6 to 9.9 acres = 11 respondents
10 to .10.9 acres = 7 respondents
11 to 19.9 acres = 4 respondents
20 acre parcels = 6 respondents
25 to 80 acres = 6 respondents

Total acreage of respondents = 778.53 acres

3. What year did you purchase your land?

1969 = 3 1971 = 6 1973 = 10 1-975 = 8 1977 = 11
1970 = 15 1972 = 4 1974 = 8 1076 = 6 1978 = 3
(to February)
 145
4. Ir you bought more than one parcel, how many?
Average= 2.6 parcels
Range of answers = 1 to 9 parcels

5. Did you see your property before you purchased it?

I!_) yes (99%)
no ( 1%)
- -1 - )
6. Was a land division involved with your purchase; that is,
was your parcel sold out of a larger piece of property?
~) yes {75%) (_____!l ) no (18%)
don't know (6%)
- -4 -)
7. How did you buy your property?
~) directly from the land owner (33.~)

~} through a local realtor· (20%)

37 ) from a land development company (47%)

8. What facilities were existing on the land when you bought

it?
5 ) septic tank {7%) ( 4 ) well (6%)
-
3
-
house or mobile home (4%)
)

- other (specify) Roads (4); Outhouse

8 } ( 1) ;
-
Spring (1) ; Barn (l); Community Clubhouse (l}

9. What services were readily.available for 'hookup' at your

property?
~) electricity (21%) 2 community water
system (3%)
- -7 - ) telephone (10%)
0 ) other
10. What sort of access do you have to your property?
~) directly onto a county road or state highway (28%)
!!____) private road (serving a number of lots) (68%)

- -4 - ) private easement (serving only a few lots) (5%)

11. How would you describe your access road?
10 ) good construction and maintenance (14%)
3.8 ) fair construction and maintenance (53%)
1_7_} ·poor construction and maintenance (24%)
7 ) primitive road or tr.ail _(10%)
 146
12. Is your property located in an open range area?
51 ) yes ( 71 %) no ( 11%) don't know
- -8 -) 13
(18%)

13. Did the person you purchased the property from mention
open range, grazing leases, "herd laws" or related sub-
ject to you before you purchased the property?
16 ) yes (23%) ( 43 ) no (61%) ( 12 ) don't
~- remember (17%)

14. Have you had concerns or problems with grazing livestock

on your property or access roads? If so, please descri;)~
cribe: Damage to Spring (l); Damage to vegetation (3);
Cause insect problems (4); General nuisance (6); tear
down fences (12); Damage to garden, fruit trees, etc.
(16); grazing without permission (3); Danger to children
(2); "unsanitary hazard"/excrement (7); Noise problem
(1); Dangerous on Roadway (1) . (Number in parenthesis
indicates number of similar responses).

15. What was your main reason for purchasing this property?
(You may wish to check more than one)
( 17 ) permanent home (24%) ( 29 ) camping, hunting,
16 ) retirement home (22%) etc. (40%)
~) investment (38%) (___22 recreation/second
home ( 39%)
2 other (3%) (Specify)
Peace & Quiet (l); Home for potential Farm
Operation (1).

16. Which would best describe your present use of your

property?
!1._J_)permanently occupied (25%)
~) only occasionally (46%)
~) weekends and vacation (22%)

- -5 -) rarely or never visit (7%)

17. If you do not permanently occupy your property, which

would best describe your future plans for it, say in
five years?
~) permanently occupy (25%)
~) use occasionally (33%)
~) use weekends and vacations (29%)
vi~it/sell
- -8 -) never or hold for investment (13%)
,
147
18. Are you satisfied with your property?
§_Q___) yes (86%) (---1:.Q ) no (14%)
If no, why? (may check more than one)
too small { 3%) too expensive ( 3%)
- -2 -) ( 2 )
( 2 ) developer has not provided the facilities or
service indicated when property was .purchased {3%)

- -4 -) utilities too expensive (6%)

( 0 site not suitable for septic tank (0%)
( 2 impractical to drill well (3%)
( 1 excessive slope/steep lot (1%)

- -3 -) lot
purposes (4%)
has not increased in value for investment

~-5_) other (explain) (7%) Taxes too high ( 3

(4%) well too costly (1) (1%) Summers too hot/dry
(1) (1%)

19. Do you now live in, or have you ever lived in, Klickitat
County?
22 yes (31%) 48 ) no ( 69%)

20. How many persons (your immediate family) live on your

Klickitat County property or visit the property occa-
sionally? (~~> (average) Range of answers = 0 to
10 persons
E-~ XION3:dd\l
1 ...

149

TABULATION

KLICKITAT COUNTY RANGE PARCELIZATION SURVEY

REALTORS

1. Are you familiar with open range traditions and laws?

__6_) yes ( _ _l ) no

2. Have any of your clients mentioned any open range live-

stock grazing problems on their property?
__ 3_) yes ( _ _4 } no

3. Approximately how many such complaints have you heard?

l=l; 2=1; several=!

4. What was the main problem(s)?

- -2 -) livestock "trespassing" on their property

fencing
- -1 -)
livestock on roadways
- -1 - )
- -1 -) other: livestock in garden

5. Would you give an example(s): Cattle ate buyers garden

(l); Luna Creek area (1).

6. What seems to be the main method property owners use to

try to resolve the problem?
0 ) confront the rancher
--
3 ) fence his property
- -
( 0 ) petition for a herd law
~-

1 ) just complain - no action

..
1 ) other: Home owners association

7. Do you inform your clients about open range traditions?

_5_ ) yes
1 ) no
 150
8. Which would describe your attitude about range resident
problems?
4 not serious enough to worry about·
5 a concern that can be handled by proper informa-
tion to the purchaser
1 something should be done to alleviate the problem

9. What do you, as a realtor, think of "the following poten-

tials for resolving open range disputes?
( 2 ) like ( 4 ) dislik~-establishment of herd laws
( _O~) like ( 5 ) dislike-mandatory fencing of sub-
divisions and short plats

- -5 - ) like 1 dislike-notification of range

status in the title report

- -6 -) like 0 dislike-prepare a booklet concern-

ing range traditions to be given
to purchasers by realtors

10. Do you have any other suggestions on how to prevent con-

flict between ranchers and new residents? end all open
range area (l); live with open range area (2); respect
rights of ranchers (1); inform buyers of range status
before they buy (2)
£> XIGN3:ddV
_... ~""""'.lfo- ... • ¥ ..... .. t~ .... 11.J..-
t
~
 152

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS

Ranchers
Bud Amidon
Jim Beeks, Chairman, County Livestock Association
John Castle
Dennis Clark, Planning Commission member
Jack Davenport
Wayne Eshelman, Chairman, County Planning Commission
Fred Holly, Former County Commissioner
Frank Margraf£
Phillip Tuthill

Purchasers
Frank Benson
Nancy .Douglas
John Keller
Martin Framer

Public Officials and Agency Personnel

Buzz Clausen, County Conunissioner (also a rancher)
Gary Kitchen, County Commissioner
Badge Kreps, County Commissioner (also a rancher)

Rich Williams, County Sheriff

Gene Hanson, County Prosecutor

Roger Pond, Extension Agent
,.w ~---~, ··-·-- ..

I 153
I Bernard Murphy, Washington State Department of Natural
I Resources
l Jim Bull, U. S. Forest Service

Dick Adlard, Extension Agent

I
l
Lorraine Abbott, County Planning Department
I
REAL ESTATE AGENTS

Fred Heany

Joe Rogers

Fred Bailey

George Smith

Martha Niblack

Others
Pete May, Former newspaper publisher and.Klickitat County
Historical Society Member

Leonard Rolph, St. Regis Paper Company

Bob Chambers, SDS Lumber ~ompany

Carl Moore, Well Driller

Roger Boardman, Attorney

 APPENDIX H

HOMESTEAD LAND CORPORATION, FLYER MAILED

TO RANCHERS
 155

{~
. : ~ • +.M~~, ••
. .. ~.r?' ·..,·· · "Thr land<~{ f!Oldr11 opportunit_r"
Residential & Commercial Cons1rucfion
\....... . ~ Homes-Forms-Acreage-Commercial Property-lnvestmei:its
6108 ·Highway 99 Suite 103-Voncouver, Washington 98665-(206) 696-9981

~~

DEAR LANDOWNER:

THE RECORDS OF r:rr~·: ~· "'.' COUNTY. WASHINGTON SHOWS YOU AS

OWNING PROPERTY IN SECTION l'4 TOWNSHIP _ _~_RANGE _ _..,,1.;..0_ __

WlllAMETTE MERIDIAN.

HOMESTEAD LANO COR~ORA TION IS PR ESE NTL Y CONSIDERING PURCHASING

· PROPER.TY IN TlilS AREA. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SELLING, PLEASE INDICATE

YOUR INTEREST BY CHECKl~G THE APPROPRIATE BOXES AS LISTED ON THE RESPONSE

SHEET ENCLOSED HEREIN.

READ EACH OF THE RESPONSE Al TERNA Tl.YES CAREFULLY BEFORE CHECKING. THE

. ONE THAT APPLIES TO YOUR SITUATION.

WHATEVER, YOUR DESIRE, YOUR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE Will BE APPRECIATED.

PLEASE USE THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE TO RETURN THE RESPONSE SHEET AS SOON

AS eoSSIBLE. THANK YOU.

VERYTRULY YOURS,

.. .
.A'L \,, //' r(.,.,.., (·~ ~
·~ {/. \.71/~

HOMESTEAD lAND CORP.

 156

RESPONSE SHEET
(Please Check Appropriate Boxes}

DALTERNATIVE NO. 1 YES, l'M INTERESTED IN SELLING MY Pl\QPERTY. THE PRICE I Will

SEll FOR IS S , 0 CASH 0 CONTRACT

COMMENTS:-------------------

DALTERNAT!VE NO. 2 YES, l'M INTERESTED IN SELLING, HOWEVER, I PREFER THAT HOME·

STEAD LAND .CORPORATION MAKE ME AN OFFER. I UNDERSTAND

THAT I AM
. NOT COMMITTED TO ACCEPT SAID
. OFFER AND THAT

SAID OFFER Will BE MADE SUBJECT TO MY ACCEPTANCE WITHIN

TEN (10) DAYS . 0 CASH 0 CONTRACT.

. COMMENTS:-----------------...,-

DALTERNATIVE NO. 3 I WOULD CONSIDER AN OPTION FROM HOMESTEAD LAND COR-

Dves DNo · PORATION To PURCHASE MY PROfERTY.

COMMENTS=-----~------------

·oALTERNATIVE NO. 4 NO, l'M NOT INTERESTED IN SELLING AT THIS TIME.

COMMENTS: - . . . : . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

DO YOU OWN YOUR PROPERTY FREE AND CLEAR? _ _

THE APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF PROPERTY? ____________________

CAN YOU OFFER ANY INFORMATION OR COMMENT ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY THAT MAY BE

OF HELP? PLEASE INCLUDE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, OR ATTACH COPY, OF YOUR PROPERTY

IF A V A I L A B L E . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P~EASE AllOW 30 DAYS FOR COMPLETION OF PROPERTY EVALUATION.

SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER

WIFE

Address Street

City State Zip

Telephone Area Code - Number

 SMV'I-Xa
NOiiliVIJOSSV SM2NMO WI~ vrawn'IOJ
I XIGN2ddV
~ ......~~ ... ....,.~ "-1' ~.......... .., ~~ ...

158

BY-LAWS

OF
COLUMBIA RIM OWNERS ASSOCIATION

ARTICLE I

.Membership

.Section 1. Eligibility

The Associati;n shall Membership of the

Association shall be limited to purchasers or owners of the real property
which is legally described as per Exhibit A attached. Thejpurchaser of a
parcel within the legal description (Exhibit A), shall be deemed an owner
.for membership purposes, and the term "owner" shall include a contract
purchaser or assignee and holder of record of the vendee•slinterest under
any such contract. Membership shall be inseparately appurtenant to owner-
ship in the properties defined herein, and upon transfer of ownership by
deed, court decree or otherwise, or upon the making of a contract of sale,
membership shall be automatically transferred with the land to the new
owner or purchaser. No membership shall be transferred in any other way.

Section 4. Voting.
Each owner shall have one membership. Each member sh 11 be entitled
to one vote for each·20 acres of land owned. However, sho~ld any tract
of 20 acres or more be subdivided, the purchaser of the smaller tract
shall have one membership and be entitled to one vet~~ A ~usband and •·
wife holding land as community property or two or more oth~r persons hold-
ing jointly or as tenants in common shall be entitled collectively to one
membership and thereby to one vote. The personal representative of a de-
ceased member shall have all that member's rights, privileges and duties.
l ... --<--- .~~~·

159

ARTICLE VI

Obligations of Membership

Section 1. Building and Use Restrictions

(1.) No residence shall be construct~d on any acreage or portion thereof,

which contains less than 1000 square feet of living area, exclusive
of garages, porches and outbuildings. The value of said residence
shall not be less than _$20,000, includin~ attached ga~ages and porch-
es. Mobile homes shall be an exception as noted in paragraph 7 below.
Further, vacation cabins (occupancy less than three (3) months per
year) shall be acceptable providing 800 square feet is ·~he minimum
living area •.

(2.) No building shal~ be constructed on any acreage or any portion there-

of which shall be nearer than fifteen (15) feet from any property
line of said acreage.

(3.) No shack, garage or other outbuilding constructed or, placed upon any
portion o~ said lots shall at any time be used as a ~emporary or per-.
manent residence -- except that a garage, small trai+er nouse, or a
permanent outbuilding may be used as a temporary residence while a
permanent residence is being constructed -- but such temporar~ resi-
dence shall be limited to a period not to exceed one year.

(4.) All residences, dwellings erected shall be placed on a solid continu-

ous concrete or masonry foundation. ·

(S.l All buildings which may be placed or constructed on ~ny acreage or

portion thereof must be painted, stained, or process painted within
six months from the date, that said buildings are completed. Stone,
brick, and masonry buildings or masonry portions of ~uildings are ex-
cepted. Log·cabins or cedar homes are excepted.

(6.) All.dwellings shall have an individual sewage disposal system installed

and constructed in compliance with the requirements qf the State Sani-
tary Authority of Health Authority having jurisdictio~.

(7.) No mobile home smaller than 14 X 55 feet to be used as a permanent

residence, will be allowed on any acreage or portion thereof. All
mobile homes shall be models with contemporary siding and in good
condition. All mobile homes and outbuildings used in connection with
such mobile homes shall be constructed and shall be kept painted ·to
remain esthetically compatible with homes in th~ are~. All mobile
homes plac~d upon the property shall' have a concrete '.or brick exteri-
or foundation or ~kirting designed by mobile home manufacturer and at
least one or more built up porch with covered.awning ,totaling not less
than 75 square feet in area. Further, no field fabricated snow roofs
over trailer homes shall be perm~tted without approval of the design
by the home owners association governing the herein described property.
All mobile homes utilized as a permanent residence shall be placed on
a concrete or asphalt foundation with a minimum of two foundation
bases 18 inches wide by the length of the trailer for single wides and
four strip bases of similar widths for double wides. An attached or
detached cove=ed carpott or garage with a minimum of 200 ft.2 of con-.
crete or asphalt base shall be constructed and completed within 24
months of the installation of a mobile home.
i ~·~~T --- ~

160

(7.) Cont. Further, within the same 24 months, the owner of the mobile home
shall plant and maintain at least 34 evergreen 'trees or shurbs and
complete a minimum of $250. in nursery type landscaping which may
_include "wood" rail or screen type fences.
(8.) No acreage shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rub-
bish, trash, garbage or other waste. Any normal accumulation of
garbage or waste shall be kept in sanitary containers at all times.

(9.) These restrictions shall be deemed to be for the protection and for
the benefit of each of the owne=s or occupants of any portion of the
above described acreage, and it is intended hereby that any such per-
son or the owners association shall have the right to prosecute such
proceedings at law or inequity as may be appropriate to enforce the
restrictions herein set forth.
~

(10.)These restrictions shall-run with the land and shall be binding on

the owner or tenant of any or all of said land and all persons claim-
ing by, through or under them until January 1, 1988, at which time
said covenants.shall be automatically extended for successive periods
of ten years. However, the covenants and restrictions may be modi-
fied or amrnended at any time by majority vote as described within
the Columbja Rim Owners Association by-laws,
.Article XI, Section 1.

Section 2. Nuisances.

All garbage, unlicensed automobiles, or other debris shall be removed

or buried within ninety (90) days at owner's expense or property owners'
association may remove and assess the owner for removal expense. All· trash,
garbage, and other refuse shall be kept in covered containers pending
proper disposal.

Section 3. Roads and Water Works.

Easement roads reserved for the owners associations' benefit, the

associations' community wells and water works will be maintained, governed,
and improved by this Association. The initial membership charge of $300
and annual dues of $80 shall be used.for these purposes. The water sys-
tem shall be operated on a non~profit basis. The Association shall have
the right to vary the dues as necessary to meet the maintenance and oper-
ating costs of said water system. Further, should any member or memoers
advance funds beyond the normal dues or assessments to improve, maintain,
or further develop the community water supply, the funds shall apply
against future membership assessments for roads, wells and water works
development and dues not to exceed five (5) years for operating and main-
tenance cost for water, roads, or utilities.

Section 4. Easements.

All members agree to abide by all easements of record effecting

roads and utilities.

section s. Clearing and Burning.

Clearing of trees and brush and burning of debris shall be performed

in accordance with Washington state law.
 APPENDIX J-1

LETTER TO COUNTY OFFICIALS AND

MAILING LIST
,~

162

,. ..... r;.... . I' - . L ..., . ..

:ti-·
Courthouse Annex ,,_ ... , • ,;;.. •• ,...... .(:t.11"' ;1q . 216 N. Tohomlsh St.
I'
t

228 W. Main . .:: ~. ~;,:·'::;:-;\"t; :;;\( i ~;'t· /"" . · - .... P.O. Box 392
~ E·- I I ...

----- - White Salmon, WA 98672

=~ .:=:~-·:;_-)::~. ~-l :~-===..--=.

P.O. Box 268 • ,... J , .•
509-493-2580
Goldendale, WA 98620
~---<~ (t~ P: -(IJ·~o·i a-=--·--:----·~!

/:~:::~i.tr1Jl~
'~ ·~4~
.; ~ ~ ~~~ 11_l,_
~ ~ ~ ::~ ~ ~:·1}:-f[ti
so9-n3-s103
j - .

·~~~J~;~~~~~- --
-~ =--=--=-·- .:- ·. -=--

KLICKITAT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Jan. 12, 1977

To Concerned Officials:
There is increasing pressure in Klickitat County to develop rec-
reation and residential sites on rangeland. Traditional lives~ock
grazing areas and "cattle-drive routes" are threatened by summer
homes, "camp clubs", snowmobiles, fences and "herd law districts".
New residents are often unaware of the open range status of their
property; hence conf~.icts arise when livestock "trespasses" on
their land. These and other concerns create economic, environ-
mental and social problems for both ranc~ers and new residents.

Does your county have a similar problem?

If so, we'd like to hear about it. If you have developed, or are
aware of, any reports, ordinances, or other information regarding
rangeland land use conflicts please let us know. We intend to
prepare a major report on the subject and would be happy to share
with you our findings.
Thank you for your time and assistance.

s~~
Dennis A. Olson
Planning Director
DAO:cf
 163
Letter of January 12, 1977 sent to:

Boards of Commissioners, Extension Agents and Planning

Directors of:

Washington: Adams County Lincoln County

Benton County Okanogan County
Chelan County Pend Oreille County
Douglas County Skamania County
Ferry County Spokane County
Franklin County Stevens County
Grant County Yakima County
Kittitas County

Oregon: Wasco County

Jefferson County
Crook County
Deschutes County

Cooperative Extension Service Staff, WSU and OSU:

Ronald C. Faas
Lester N. Liebel
Ben F. Roche, Jr.

1
l . ·-~- -- . - ~

APPENDIX J-2

LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS IN A RANGE MULTIPLE USE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND MAILING LIST
 165

,,.-
.... r;..' · I' . L
Courthouse Annex .. • - ,,-- (!~·(" i~ ',,·1c• •. 216 N. Tohomish St.
228 W. Mein .-~-·..:-'~:·~ I I ,.i ,,;.·,..- .·-·· P.O. Box 392
P.O. Box 268 _,, ....:':~~:. .:-<·:!'" ~· y-:_ ~- '~...::... - - White Salmon. WA 98672

Goldendale, WA 98620 ·· .._:-4~H-- -~·- ---·". ti~-'--:---·~

_..:..~-----· 509-493-2580

~~~-
.·~toi
t .. fl~ 9-: t;:!-~-1.'1-·
3=~~f:~i·-:-·t~.;.~1
lli

/,,::-~~~-~~~I
fr1 ~~[? :met~,~;\ ~ti
sos-nJ-s103 To • ~ ~ l ~ . f.-&- •
:J .
;
.\-:.:-· ~!t\~.r..· -· ... ;t.b.racJ'='~J.~'\~--~-
·~~~.::::·~_::::-~ ~- --
~ =. -~·- · . -=-

KLICKITAT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Jan . 17 , 19 77

Dear
Because of your participqtion in the recent Cooperative Exten-
sion Service Range Multiple Use Management Program, I am soli-
citing your assistance.
As noted in the attached letter, Klickitat County is experienc-
ing increasing use of traditional rangeland for residential and
recreational development. The resultant land parcelization and
complicated legal, environmental and socio-economic impacts are
of great concern to ranchers and rangeland managers. "Herd
laws", fences, cattle rustling and ~ther problems for the ranch-
er are caused by increased population and settlement in grazing
areag.
If you are aware of any studies of this specific problem. please
let me know. And, I'd love to hear any personal comments re-
garding the subject.
Thank you so very much for-your assistance.

Dennis A. Olson
Planning Director
DAO:cf
encl.
l '"

166
Letter of January 17, 1977 sent to:

Glen D. Fulcher, Chief, Division of Standards and Technology,

Bureau of Land Management, Denver

Grant L. Harris, Chairman, Department of Forestry, Washington

S~ate University

Ms. Laney Hicks, Sierra Club, Dubois, Wyoming

Wally Hoffman, Washington State Department of Natural

Resources, Olympia

Ted Klein, Washington State Department of Natural Resources,

Ellensburg

William C. Krueger, Extension Rangeland Resource Specialist,

Oregon State University

Darwin B. Nielson, Economics Department, Utah State University

Carl M. Rice, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento

Ben Roche, Jr., Extension Range Management Specialist,

Washington State University

Robert L. Ross, Range Conservationist, Soil Conservation

Service, Bozeman, Montana
£-!1 XICTN:!IddV
 168
LETTERS TO D. OLSON (AND COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF)
IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES FOR REFERENCE MATERIALS AND
EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT:

Bedell, Thomas E., Extension Rangeland Specialist, Oregon

State University, February l4, 1977. (Copy in Appendix)
Fulcher, Glen D.,Chief, Division of Standards and Technology,
u. s. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, Denver, April 14, 1977. (Copy in Appendix)

Klein, Ted H., Area Manager, Southeast Area, Washington State

Department of Natural Resources, Ellensburg, January 24,
1977. (Copy in Appendix)

Michieli, Ronald A., Associate Director, American National

Cattlemen's Association, Washington, D. C., February 23,
1977. (Copy in Appendix)

Moyer, D. David, u. S. D. A., Economic Research Service,

University of Wisconsin - Madison, December 5, 1977.

Olson, Arthur, Okanagon County Planning Director, July 16,

1973.

Pease, James R., Land Resource Management Specialist, Exten-

sion Service, Oregon State University, March 9, 1977.

Rasmussen, Janna, Administrative Assistant, Society for Range

Management, Denver, March 4, 1977.

Ross, Bob, Range Conservationist, U. s. Soil Conservation

Service, Bozeman, Montana, January 21, 1977.

Taylor, John, Adams County (Washington) Plannipg Director,

February 17, 1977.

Toner, William, Senior Research Associate, American Society

of Planning Officials, Planning Advisory Service,
Chicago, December 4, 1975.
v-L' XIGN8:ddV
,
I

170
EXAMPLE LETTERS (ADDRESSED TO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS) NOTING
CONCERN OVER LIVESTOCK TRESPASS, RANGE PARCELIZATION, ETC.:

Mrs. D. R. Blackburn, Portland (Timber Valley lot owner),

November 7, 1974, "We can't have a garden because some
of the cattle roaming around the property comes through
the fences, the little kids are afraid to go out and
run around because of bulls, the cattle eat all the
small fir trees and grass aroung the property ... (our)
rights as property owne~s (are) being infringed on."

Nancy E. Douglas, Hood River (Appleton area property owner),

December 31, 1976, request for information on how to
petition to establish a herd law district.

Frank Margraff, rancher, May 11, 1976, "There should be some

steps taken to make (motorcyclists) aware of their
responsibility in an open range area. Cattle don't
have a chance where they are."

George D. May, Appleton (Timber Valley), October 15, 1974,

"My fence is good but I am forever chasing cattle off
my place. There is breachy cattle and there .... is no way
to keep them from coming through (the fences)."

W. F. Paddock, Hood River resident, November 14, 1974,

" .•• returning from Appleton ... I found four cows in the
roadway •.• why is this roadway an open range? This is
extremely dangerous travel and can cause a severe
accident."

Norma M. Rideout, and sixteen ranchers, Petition dated

December 26, 1967, "We •.. hereby request that there be
no changes made in the existing (herd law) boundaries."
S-£' XIGN!3:ddV
 172

Oregon
EXTENSION SERVICE l U ~tdte . )
rnversrty Corvallis, Oregon 97331

Februal:y 14, 1977

16 1977
:: •.•... .,,f CJ;;Hry
Dennis A. Olson :llCGIDflAL PlANNllti
Planning Director &DUNCIL •
Klickitat County
P. O. Bax 268
GoldeM.ale, Washington 98620 -~
Dear Mr. Olson:

This is in reply to a Januacy 17, 1977, lett.er that you sent to William C.
Krueger regarding land use problems. I. am afraid that this kind of

~
tuation is all too camon in the West. Strangely enough, it even ocx::urs
1Il areas where one \iii1d tfuiik theie ~ be oo great population pressure.
' }'OU are aware, Oregon is "attacking" the problan through CO\mty cx:np.re-
nsive planning coordinated through the Oregon Land Conservation arxi
Developrent CCmn.ission. F.ach romity is charged with developing its own
plan subject to statewide goals and guidelines. 'Ihls is oot rey special
area of interest, so I am oot nearly as familiar with it as I should· be.
Neitlier I nor our Extension Lan::I Resource Managem;?rlt Specialist know of
an'J studies as :you ask in your letter. '!here will, ~er, be a two day
saninar en this subject in Berrl, Oregon, March 3 and 4. I have asked that
a brochure be sent to }'OU as you may be int.erested in attending •
. .
My personal feelings are that man seems to be his own "'°rst enat¥ a g-reat
deal of the time. Ag.ricul.ture an1 people, unfortunately, are not too
cx::npatible. Noise, dust, srrell, snoke, etc. are a necessary part of
agriculture. 'Ihls is alien to nost people and they don't like it. Add
loose dogs, kids, horses to the rrelee and autanatic problems exist. In rey
opinion, pebple on small acreages (2-40 acres) often make poor use of their
land resource base. '!here are exceptions, of course. Probably many people
want to make reasonable use, rut eooocmics arXi logistics don't all.ow them to.
Appropriate larrl planning is a logical solution. We can only 00pe that it
won't ~ too late. M:>st developrents cause irreversible changes or at
least changes which may take a long time to rectify.
Sincerely,

EKt.ension Rangeland .
Resources Specialist.
1".B:bc

m•a
!f•f'JM~ Aguculture. Homt Economocs. •·H 'l'outll, Forfflty. Communlly Otvetopmen1. and l.lat1nt Adv1eory Program&
01-oon S1111 Un1,...1a11y. Un1tt4 S11111 Otp11tf1)1nt ol Agncull11re. and Oregon Co1mtl11 coope11hng
irnNSiON
t::I SERVICE
9-1' XIGN3:ddV '
1

I
.174
I

Q...,.. · ..

fN REPLY REFER TO

United States Departme.nt of the Interior 1120 {D-300)

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

DENVER SERVICE CENTER
DENVER FEDERAi. CENTER. BUil.DiNG SO
DENVER. COL.ORADO 80225

Apri 1 14 , 1977
Dennis A. Olson
Planning Director
Kl1ckitat County Planning Department
216 N. Tohomish Street
White Salmon, Washington 98670
Dear Mr. Olson:
ln response to your letter of inquiry about "Herd Laws" on open range
lands and their effects on recreational residential development, we cannot
be too helpful.

My staff members who have been heavily involved in district management

problems state that Colorado and other western states have hundreds of sub-
divisions in range livestock areas and we have received many complaint$
from residents about range livestock trespassing on their property. BLM
personnel were usually contacted because the complaintants had exhaused all
local contacts to remedy the situation. Local ord~nances were usually non-
existent.
Our usual reply was that the resident had to fence out range livestock
where Federal lands adjoined. In Colorado we referred to the attached
Colorado Fence Law which covers open range regardless of ownership. The
wording in the fence laws in most of the Western States is similar.
Rustling is becoming an increasingly difficult problem, and with more
people taking up residence in the rangeland areas, the situation will con-
tinue to become worse. There is no easy solution. Ranchers will have to
increase their range riding and maintain closer livestock supervision.
This should·also help in providing better livestock husbandry and closer
attention to range management problems.
Good luck in resolving some of these problems in Washington.
Sincerely you¥"S,

Glen Fulcher, Chief

Division of Standards and Technology
~<(';~:-lO'-UTIOl\I~
~ ~
c1- ~
m
~ ~
~
'>ls.,91~
,/
L-~ XIGN3:ddV
i

176

.,,·rr"9~'1 ·u
~:;i·1'Vi~ STATE OF WASHINGTON
Vefuvz-~t o/ CONNISSIONElt
1!9ERT COLE

~~~ DON LIE& PltASll:R

aura•vaao•

Route 3, Box 1
Ellensburg, Washington 98926

January 24, 1977

,:,;:'· ·<.~.~. . JP.~ 25 HI I

lit..-
f! ~#
t·
~;~,:.:.~
~!:f/
'i:".':).'

i
:.r,.11

~l Dennis A. Olson, Planning Director \

\:
l\lJ.K•• 1.. k

t:lUl\~'l
" .. , ••
U.ti~lltl!.l ta.1111.\ttV.
i'
...i

~~,t·~ ·~~ ~1
{Jr_: :~ ·:;, Klickitat County Planning Department
~ti} :J :·j; P .o. Box 268 1 : ... ·'
·~ ... ~·.
~~

~ .
· .. Goldendale, Washington 98620
;;.!.;~·
. .Ji1, ..
1~r:·· ;ll'4;
; HARBOA • Dear Dennis:
. ' ARI!:" '•

~\:· · ·:!. I received your letter concerning the cattle rancher-developer

1 1
~;~1..F-~·'._;
~' . ;)..,, ,, ~
problem
l in your county and about all I can do is express m:y concern
/~ :i~f'i,~ a so.
~· '.ff .. ~~··•·:.~
~;1~-~-~(I believe that Klickitat County is L'lmewbat unique in that it bas
~~'ri1 ·;;;1 been traditionally open range country but it now appeals to the urban-
~~... . :f/. summer home people ~rOlll the nearby large population centers.
f.14~.r. .::¥11
p~!l..f~;;,I~ The groups thatI haTe worked with, primarily on Coordinated Resource
dr: . ~;f~·~
'-? ·~;
Planning, have not addressed themselves to this problem. I em not
aware 01' etudiea on this problem, however, Harry Wegeleben 01' the
~·· Soil Conservation Service 1n Yakima might baYe some information on this
~~ subject.
~....
~f.rP'ences are expensiYe to build and expensive to maintain tor the cattle-
~~.; man, however, 1 t !Ila)' be that tbie is the only solution to the problem.
~~~: j~' I beliove that the cattlemen in· most of the counties are now running
T• .;6;[~ their cattle under !ence except in the high remote areas.

~~-~ I! I interpret the laws regarding fencing correctly, the only_ wa1
- ~1:{1 that an adjoinin8 land owner can be required to fence his share is
t.~ ;~~'~fi>' it be is running stock and in an open range ":?"ea 1! the !enoe forms
. ·:~r-'' an enc l o3Ul'e o.i., h is l and. p erbapa in the county planning procedure
1-t•i- .• ~~ 17.'~
!-:,;
~tt /;~~~. there may be a legal way to :torce a developer to 1'ence his land.
;f"' :~~~1
As pcpulations increase .and land management becomes more intense,
r-.,::,7,; •• :. ! { the pressure on the open range concept will without a doubt increase.
····jt!. ·1,:-1 .. {
{j,f.:.~~·~_;'.1 Sincerely yours,
.·'•. ~~~· .:· ) .

~
BERT L. COLE
. ' · Colllllliesioner of .Public Lands
'#j:

Ted R. Klein
.Area Manager
Southeast Area

TDH: clch
8-!' XIGN:tl:ddV
l 178

American National Cattlemen's Association

A Non l"rohl Corpo<1bon

ANCAI

/ ..
WASHINGTON OFFICE

425 13th Street, N.W.

'-'R ' :a 2s 1~1i
I.. . • , ~ .•. ,'f"/
":R:c;:.:.:L n.::.:;::1:
Suite 1020 CGtJ.':;rt
Washington, D.C. 20004

'··.. ~-;_/
(202) 347-0228

. February 23, 1977

Mr. Dennis A. Olson

Planning Director
Klickitat.County Planning Department
Courthouse Annex
228 West Main
P. o. Box 268
Goldendale, W~shington 98620
Dear Mr. Olson:
Your letter of recent date to Mr. George Spencer regarding
trespass on open ranges has been referred to me for response.
Be assured the issue you have raised is significant, parti-
cularly when it is viewed in the context of a larger problem con-
fronting today's rancher, the loss of valuable forage lands. This
loss is attributable in most part to the morass of Federal regu-
lations and public laws which preclude or diminish access to such
lands. You will find that most of the regulations and laws are
of an environmental nature, designed to "protect" the land from
supposedly "overzealous" users.
I
~

1· In reviewing your request, I assume that you are addressing

l yourself to "public lands" rather than private lands. In the
event that this is the .case, I would appreciate receiving a copy
or an outline of your research project. My purpose in requesting
this is simply to define and narrow the scope of the issue. This
would be most helpful to our Conunittees that address themselves
to such problems, and would provide us a point of focus to perhaps
be of help.

OFFICERS: President Wray Finney, Ft. Cobb. Oklahoma: First Vice President: Richard A. McDougal. Lovelock. Nevada: Regional Vice Presidents:
Victor M. duPont. Virginia: Fred Moore. Mississippi; Jack R. Dahl. North Dakota: Earl Brookover. Kansas; Larry Frazier, Washington: John D.
Weber, Cahlornia; Executive Commilteemen: John Greig. Iowa: Hilmar G. Moore. Texas: Glenn Deen. Texas: Robert N. Rebholtz. Idaho: Bill
Amstein, Kansas: P. H. While. Jr .• Tennessee, W. H. Webster. Colorado: Immediate Past President Gordon Van Vleck. California; E11·0lhc10:
Merlyn Carlson. Membership and Finance Comm1llee. Nebraska
 179

i -2-

I Just as soon as that information is made available, I will be

in a much better position to assess your request and provide you
with an honest response as to whether or not we really can help.

Thanks for thinking of us and I do look forward to hearing

from you.
I·

Ronald A. Michieli
Associat~ Director
RAM/okp

cc: George Spencer

Kyle Miller