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.