Utah Wildlife Forum banner

SITLA blackmailing hunters?

8K views 74 replies 25 participants last post by  Catherder 
#1 ·
#3 ·
The travesty will be if the WB allows them to operate a CWMU on SITLA property.
CWMU's are designed for private property. If the WB changes the rules to allow it then they have just screwed the sportsmen one more time.
Take away the threat of CWMU status and their economic model falls apart.
Either way the tax payers foot another bill.
 
#5 ·
I don't think that you'll have to worry about them leasing the land to outfitters and then the outfitters creating a CWMU. Take a look at a map of the state trust lands. It is a patchwork of sections and very seldom will you ever see any of them connected, not to mention a lot of them just don't hold any animals, or if they do it is very few.

I agree with Vanilla, expect a fee increase or even a deer, elk, turkey, rabbit, squirrel, grouse stamp in the future.
 
#14 ·
I thought the same.

But I also thought about the .22 ammo shortage and how people started charging astronomical prices for .22 ammo. Many people said they wouldn't pay those extortionary prices but the few people out there that didn't get the memo on the boycott kept fueling the issue.

My point is that I wonder if the same could happen here?
 
#8 · (Edited)
I didn't say that they couldn't do it, but meant that I doubt that any would really try to do it.

Here is a map of the Book Cliff area that they talked about. The small blue squares are the lands in question. Perhaps they could least out the Roadless area but at what cost to the people that are leasing it?

I think that a outfitter would be crazy to try and make a CWMU out of as many sections that they would need to actually provide a decent hunt for their clients. And the rest of the state looks just the same.
 

Attachments

#9 ·
And welcome to state based budgetary managment. I hope the same people throwing a fit over national monument(which still have full hunting access) throw the same fit over this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7mm Reloaded
#10 ·
People also need to remember that it does no good just to bitch about it but you need to do something about it.

You need to show up in force at the RAC meetings along with sending emails to the Wildlife Board members. It doesn't do any real good just talking about it on a outdoor forum since this isn't where the decisions will be made.
 
#11 ·
I have read on her before that some CWMU's even include FS land, is that correct? Yet another travesty, but sets a terrible precedent. In this case SITLA is officially private property, that is why DWR has to them every year to allow public access for hunting. Not that I agree with it, but lets call it what it really is
 
#12 · (Edited)
1. The first thing that I would say is that this should be a wake up call for any on the fence about Transfer of Public lands and what that means for future access. The summary below was posted on here a couple of months ago and discusses what the state has in mind for public lands they may snare. Bold included by me.

"HB0407 2017 Utah Public Lands Management Act

63L-8-204. Exchanges and sales.
(1) (a) It is the policy of this state that exchanges of public land are preferred to any sale of public land, and that when pursuing an exchange, an exchange with the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration is preferred to an exchange with any other party.

And then take a look at the ramifications of transferring that land to SITLA

"Public land" means any land or land interest:
(a) acquired by the state from the federal government pursuant to Section 63L-6-103, except:
(i) areas subsequently designated as a protected wilderness area, as described in Title 63L, Chapter 7, Utah Wilderness Act; and
(ii) lands managed by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

This law, signed by Governor Herbert just last week, seeks to transfer Federal Land to SITLA, where it will no longer be considered "public land". SITLA also openly seeks to convert their land to a CWMU, which certainly does not help the public land hunter.

And the funny thing about this law is that it was actually emailed to me by an SFW-supporter as proof that the land grab won't hurt hunters and part of the reason that SFW won't oppose the land grab and the attempted transfer of public lands to the State.

This bill was sponsored by Mike Noel, who also happened to be the person named in this article (http://www.sltrib.com/news/4936797-1...-local-control) as attempting to give $2,000,000 to SFW-offshoot Big Game Forever."

Yes, the current makeup of SITLA lands may not make ideal CWMU's now, but if they change the rules in anticipation of success in their "land grab" efforts, then they could turn a great deal of public lands into huge "CWMU's". The public recreationalist and especially hunters could kiss access goodbye. A very unsettling thought. Also, and simply, the state wants to turn grabbed lands over to SITLA, where this story shows, access as we know it would disappear under SITLA's current rules.

2. As I understand the SITLA rules, they do have the ability/right to demand money from the DWR for access. What that dollar amount is is certainly subject to debate. I have difficulty justifying a payment to SITLA comparable to or over Colorados payment, but they are simply paying hardball tactics right now to increase what they get and I suspect they will succeed. We, the sportmen, will pay the tab, as usual.
 
#40 ·
And then take a look at the ramifications of transferring that land to SITLA

"Public land" means any land or land interest:
(a) acquired by the state from the federal government pursuant to Section 63L-6-103, except:
(i) areas subsequently designated as a protected wilderness area, as described in Title 63L, Chapter 7, Utah Wilderness Act; and
(ii) lands managed by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

This law, signed by Governor Herbert just last week, seeks to transfer Federal Land to SITLA, where it will no longer be considered "public land". .


The thing that bugs me most about all of this is that Governor Herbert (and other republicans in our state will say the same) will stand at the pulpit and say that he doesn't want to lose our public lands; then, he turns around and signs a bill like this into law. Either he is totally stupid and doesn't get what he is doing, or he is a total hypocrite. You choose.
 
#13 ·
We need to shut up and pay(oh I guess you can bitch a little bit). We must remember that SITLA has complete control over the land and by law is required to make as much money from the property as possible. I am sure land leases have gone up in dollar amount over the last ten years and that would include SITLA property. You only need to take a ride down to the LaSals to see how much good hunting property they control. To let that property slip into the hands of private control through a long term lease would be a real shame. They can and will lease it to the highest bidders!

I think the thing to do is contact WL Board members and tell them to negotiate the best deal they can BUT do not let this property slip into the hands of private interests.
 
#18 ·
I agree, BP. We should do what we can to make this land accessible to average outdoor enthusiasts. The program is designed to maximize profits for schools since there is so little private property in UT to generate tax revenues. Hunting is big business now. If they are obligated to maximize profits, then they have the leverage to ask for more based on what the market will pay. It's not necessarily blackmail, they're simply in a position to ask for more since access is worth more now.

I also agree with Bax--if the DWR won't pay, there are definitely people who will.

The state designate 4 out of every 36 section per township to Trustlands. That's about 11%, not 33%
 
#19 · (Edited)
I don't have the exact figures, but that doesn't seem far fetched to me at all. Most western states have sold large percentages of the land they were granted at statehood. Also, I don't really think grizzly is overly prone to hyperbole from what I've seen.

There is also a possibility he was thinking about any land under state management, not just sitla for the 33 percent of private figure.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
#17 · (Edited)
#20 ·
In the Enabling Act, about 10% of the total public lands were set aside as SITLA land at statehood. Much of this has been sold since then and continues to be sold as the SITLA administrators see fit. Considering current SITLA inventories and the total amount of private land present in the state, I don't think the figure is that far fetched.
 
#21 ·
Critter
If you look at the maps of tabby mountain there are three CWMU'S and one private elk ranch and hunting preserve connected to the school trust lands. I know one of the previous owners of the elk ranch pursued buying a large chunk of the tabby mountain land several years ago and the public outcry stopped it that time. What's nest.
 
#27 ·
First the SITLA would have to lease or sell the land to someone and then with that lease or ownership papers in hand the owner could then do the CWMU. I think it is the WB that makes the decision on the CWMU.
 
#29 ·
Allent,

From what I understand the elk ranch is no longer actively managed. There are still elk on the property (last I heard) but they can't be released into the wild.
 
#32 ·
It's a Wildlife Board decision on the CWMU. But technically the legislature could pass a law allowing or barring it. The only authority the Wlidlife Board possesses to make rules has come from legislative delegated authority. What the legislature giveth, it can taketh away. Technically.

But a lot would need to happen before this gets to a CWMU application process. One of those things being SITLA making the decision to close at least those respective lands to the public.
 
#34 ·
It's a Wildlife Board decision on the CWMU. But technically the legislature could pass a law allowing or barring it. The only authority the Wlidlife Board possesses to make rules has come from legislative delegated authority. What the legislature giveth, it can taketh away. Technically.

But a lot would need to happen before this gets to a CWMU application process. One of those things being SITLA making the decision to close at least those respective lands to the public.
Seems like SITLA could easily apply for CWMU status for selected areas of their property and the WB would have a tough time denying them. The existing lease arrangement with the WB is proof that the property is already "closed" to public use. You just have to keep in mind that SITLA land is NOT public property.
 
#33 ·
No PILT money is received for SITLA land. SITLA land is not Federal property.

Maybe we should look into the possibility of making SITLA make PILT type payments to the various counties??

In a way, PILT payments are strange things...kind of like having the landlord make rent payment on his own property.

Another interesting SITLA tidbit...did you know you can lease property from SITLA for personal use and treat it just like private property. You can fence it off and mark it "keep out". There are thousands of acres of SITLA land that is virtually "Private Property" within the state of Utah. Much of this land has been under lease for years and years and you always assumed it was just regular private property. Much of it controls access to public property(federal) that you would/should have access to.
 
#35 ·
Another interesting SITLA tidbit...did you know you can lease property from SITLA for personal use and treat it just like private property. You can fence it off and mark it "keep out". There are thousands of acres of SITLA land that is virtually "Private Property" within the state of Utah. Much of this land has been under lease for years and years and you always assumed it was just regular private property. Much of it controls access to public property(federal) that you would/should have access to.
With a SITLA lease comes inherit property rights. under current rules with the state via DWR one can not obtain a lease based off hunting. The lease has to be under agriculture or mineral uses. I am currently in a process to lease from SITLA. Waiting on them to get the lease up and moving. I am very curious to see how this plays out. IF the rules are changed to where SITLA property can be leased for hunting look out for crazy things to happen. Sitla property is all over the place. what a game changer....
 
#36 ·
I get that they want to get the highest revenue out of the land as possible. And I wish that the government would use more financial common sense in general, but I think this particular idea doesn't wash.

This was already running in a way that made people money and served a purpose for conservation. And PUBLIC LAND!

If you lease public land to private entities, then it is not public land.

It seems like a lot of people from almost every walk of life and every political stratum would be against this if we got some coverage.
 
#38 ·
BPerkins;1845474 said:
I get that they want to get the highest revenue out of the land as possible. And I wish that the government would use more financial common sense in general, but I think this particular idea doesn't wash.

This was already running in a way that made people money and served a purpose for conservation. And PUBLIC LAND!

If you lease public land to private entities, then it is not public land.

It seems like a lot of people from almost every walk of life and every political stratum would be against this if we got some coverage.
Sitla land is not public land.
Maybe this will awaken some to the land transfer issues and how bad of an idea it is.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top