# SITLA blackmailing hunters?



## Vanilla

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5309851-155/utah-school-trust-lands-agency-wants-millions

What say ye? I say this is a joke. If access goes away to the general public and the Wildlife Board allows them into the CWMU program, I will absolutely lose my freaking mind!


----------



## Kwalk3

This would be an absolute travesty. I don't want to see some of the best hunting grounds locked up in a very because of the sitla board. New challenges every day it seems.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## middlefork

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.


----------



## Vanilla

No, the hunters will foot another bill. Prepare for license/fee increases at a minimum. I get the idea behind this, but they really are holding the hunters hostage here, and they know it. 

In some areas we call it extortion when you threaten someone to get more money out of them.


----------



## Critter

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.


----------



## paddler

I suppose the DWR could just prohibit hunting on SITLA lands. There goes the economic value from hunting. They'd get zip.


----------



## mtnrunner260

Critter,
The board granted a variance this year for a non contiguous cwmu. Who knows what is next.


----------



## Critter

mtnrunner260 said:


> Critter,
> The board granted a variance this year for a non contiguous cwmu. Who knows what is next.


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.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

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.


----------



## Critter

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.


----------



## Huge29

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


----------



## Catherder

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.


----------



## BPturkeys

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.


----------



## Bax*

paddler said:


> I suppose the DWR could just prohibit hunting on SITLA lands. There goes the economic value from hunting. They'd get zip.


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?


----------



## Hoopermat

Now someone that supports the land transfer tell me now. WHY.


----------



## ridgetop

Over on MM, Grizzly claims that over 33% of all private land in Utah was once owned by SICLA. Does anyone know where this claim is coming from?
I call BS on that one.


----------



## Critter

There is a possibility of that. Just look at the property ownership of the towns over on the west end of Utah Lake or any township that has come into existence in the last 100 or so years.

Here is a link to a downloadable map of the State Trust Lands.

https://trustlands.utah.gov/resources/maps/gis-data-and-maps/surface-and-mineral-maps/


----------



## AF CYN

BPturkeys said:


> 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.


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%


----------



## Kwalk3

ridgetop said:


> Over on MM, Grizzly claims that over 33% of all private land in Utah was once owned by SICLA. Does anyone know where this claim is coming from?
> I call BS on that one.


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


----------



## Catherder

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.


----------



## allent

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.


----------



## grizzly

ridgetop said:


> Over on MM, Grizzly claims that over 33% of all private land in Utah was once owned by SICLA. Does anyone know where this claim is coming from?
> I call BS on that one.





Kwalk3 said:


> 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.


Thanks for the backup kwalk3, I can virtually always source all information that I post. In fact, Catherder's post #12 with the legal code regarding public land and SITLA was initially my post as well.

It is a fact that about 1/3 of all private property was once SITLA land, not just land under state management. Here's the paragraph from the study and the sourced article. Also, this article was from nearly 10 years ago, so it has only gotten worse since then.

---------------------

"Private lands comprise over 11.4 million acres of land. This equates to 21.1 percent of the land area. The majority of private lands in Utah are located in northern and central Utah in the fertile valleys and upland benches. Although early federal legislation played an integral role in defining the patterns and distribution of private land in the state, the transfer of state trust land has also contributed to private ownership patterns. In fact, approximately 30 percent of all private lands in Utah were originally state trust lands (SITLA, 2008a)."

http://extension.usu.edu/utahrangelands/files/uploads/RRU_Section_Two.pdf

---------------------

Ridgetop, you probably should edit your post with a correction.


----------



## grizzly

One more thing about SITLA, they only provide .9% of education funding each year... so don't get tricked into thinking this program is a major contributor to education. Its not.


----------



## king eider

ridgetop said:


> Over on MM, Grizzly claims that over 33% of all private land in Utah was once owned by SICLA. Does anyone know where this claim is coming from?
> I call BS on that one.


I was at the last SITLA land auction in Oct and that statement was made from the #2 guy in charge of SITLA. The feds gave the state's lots of property in the beginning to use for education funding. I don't doubt the claim.


----------



## Vanilla

The RAC and Wildlife Board are not the entities that need to make the right decision on this one. If we get to the point where they are legitimately talking about CWMUs on these lands, then we already lost.


----------



## Catherder

Vanilla said:


> The RAC and Wildlife Board are not the entities that need to make the right decision on this one. If we get to the point where they are legitimately talking about CWMUs on these lands, then we already lost.


Honest question. Is it the WB or the legislature that would make rule changes to allow SITLA to make a CWMU or a CWMU like entity?


----------



## Critter

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.


----------



## Kwalk3

grizzly said:


> Thanks for the backup kwalk3, I can virtually always source all information that I post. In fact, Catherder's post #12 with the legal code regarding public land and SITLA was initially my post as well.
> 
> It is a fact that about 1/3 of all private property was once SITLA land, not just land under state management. Here's the paragraph from the study and the sourced article. Also, this article was from nearly 10 years ago, so it has only gotten worse since then.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> "Private lands comprise over 11.4 million acres of land. This equates to 21.1 percent of the land area. The majority of private lands in Utah are located in northern and central Utah in the fertile valleys and upland benches. Although early federal legislation played an integral role in defining the patterns and distribution of private land in the state, the transfer of state trust land has also contributed to private ownership patterns. In fact, approximately 30 percent of all private lands in Utah were originally state trust lands (SITLA, 2008a)."
> 
> http://extension.usu.edu/utahrangelands/files/uploads/RRU_Section_Two.pdf
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> Ridgetop, you probably should edit your post with a correction.


Thanks for clarifying and posting the source. These discussions are always much more productive when they are grounded in facts.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Bax*

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.


----------



## allent

Bax*

The elk ranch is now owned and operated by the young living farms. Not only are they active they are bringing in more elk and bison and are expanding as they have bought several large tracts of land.


----------



## Hoopermat

AF CYN said:


> BPturkeys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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%
Click to expand...

The gov also pays the state for every acre of public land evey year. It is because the state cannot generate tax revenue on public lands there is a breakdown of how much each county gets. As it would loose these payments if it had the lands transferred

https://www.doi.gov/pilt/


----------



## Vanilla

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.


----------



## BPturkeys

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.


----------



## BPturkeys

Vanilla said:


> 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.


----------



## king eider

BPturkeys said:


> 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....


----------



## BPerkins﻿

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.


----------



## BPturkeys

king eider said:


> 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....


I am certainly no expert, but SITLA is already leasing the hunting rights...to the DWR. I believe SITLA can basically do whatever they want with their land, the DWR has no sayso at all over SITLA decisions. Once the DWR's lease runs out...
SITLA can build hotels w/ glass bottoms swimming polls, they can drill for oil, they can sell it, lease it, they can do whatever they want, they can burn it to the ground. They are under no obligation to serve the general public in any way. They are under no obligation to try and conserve the land for future generations. To fulfill their legal obligation all they need to do is maximize the dollar amount they receive from whatever they do with the land.

You think the DWR has authority to stop SITLA from having a private hunting grounds? Yeah, they can't even stop another agency(Utah park service) within their own department from having their own private hunts. Does Antelope Island ring a bell?

Under the current laws, SITLA holds all the cards...we(the DWR) needs to pay up and keep control of this property.


----------



## Hoopermat

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.


----------



## Kwalk3

I think everyone needs to read Catherder's post #13 in this thread while considering the numerous times it's been said that SITLA land is NOT PUBLIC LAND.

There are real mechanisms being put in place by our legislature and governor that are laying the groundwork for shutting sportsmen out of places that we can currently hunt, fish, and otherwise recreate. Add in the SITLA board and it's pretty clear that the deck is being stacked against public land enthusiasts.

The individual moves and posturing may seem innocuous, but when all the pieces are put together, nothing that is happening right now is laying the groundwork for the preservation of access.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> 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.*


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> 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.


^^^ Bingo! This illustrates exactly why I don't support the federal land transfer to the state of Utah, and why I don't think people that are advocating it that like public lands actually understand what the transfer will do once the rubber hits the road.

They (elected officials) are either too incompetent to truly understand what they are saying they are going to do, or they are lying. Either way, it does not bode well for us as Joe Public to get state ownership here in Utah.


----------



## johnnycake

Catherder said:


> 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.
> .


Ok, hold the phone here. I don't think your conclusion is supported by what I can see in the bill. I might be reading your words wrong but it seems like you are claiming that HB0407 would transfer any of the federal lands possibly received from the land transfer into SITLA's control. Is that what you are saying here/you think?

As I'm reading the bill through it appears to just say that SITLA lands are not public (which is already the case). That section of the bill you quote specifically includes as "public" the lands received from the feds unless already designated as wilderness or part of a SITLA land swap. SITLA land swaps being preferred to outright sales to private parties as it takes SITLA lands scattered about and condenses them into one area, by doing basically the same thing with other fed/state/private lands. It is a zero sum game meaning you start with 5 acres SITLA and 5 acres <insert entity here> and you end up with 5 acres SITLA and 5 acres <insert entity here>, but in different places to simplify the checkerboard and make larger contiguous tracts of ownership.

I could be wrong, and maybe the bill does propose to place any received fed lands into SITLA ownership...and I'm just not seeing it?


----------



## grizzly

Johnnycake, the law does not declare that all lands received via the land grab will automatically be transferred to SITLA, it says that transferring land to SITLA is preferred to selling it outright. That however, is a distinction without a difference, since both result in the loss of public land... because you area correct that SITLA is already not public land. 

There is nothing, however, in the bill referring to zero sum or acre - for - acre ratio. Those transfers could result in the loss of prime recreating/ hunting land in exchange for alkali salt flats of greater acreage but zero recreational value. To assume zero sum is an assumption without merit and can't be supported by the bill.


----------



## Kwalk3

Johnnycake,

Taking your analysis as given, wouldn't SITLA land being consolidated and more contiguous increase the likelihood that said land would be desired for outfitting leases(CWMU status) in addition to being much more attractive to sell? Thus, even if there was an acre-for-acre, or equal value proposition for exchanging land with SITLA, it could still end up in loss of prime hunting ground to the public land hunter. It would also make it much less likely that SITLA would feel any need to seek a reasonable agreement with the DWR to allow access.

Even though the bill doesn't expressly transfer fed. land to SITLA, I can still be opposed to it as a reasonable person due to the potential future implications of SITLA land parcels being conglomerated. SITLA has one job, and I don't fault them for doing it. I just don't think we need to make things any easier for anyone trying to restrict public access.


----------



## johnnycake

Honestly, I was not wading into the water on whether this was the greatest thing since Goob's sliced ptarmigan liver or that this was the most horrifying thing since Goob's sliced ptarmigan liver. All I was doing was seeking to clarify what appeared to be the claim that should the fed-state transfer happen the bill would directly put lands into SITLA, which is not the case. 

As for land swaps, my understanding of it is SITLA land swaps have to be done based on the fair market values of the parcels in question. So (theoretically pulling numbers out of my rectum here) 150 acres in the book cliffs might be worth 1500 acres in the west desert or 15 acres in the Daniel's Summit area. Since SITLA got 4 sections in every township, oftentimes other land owners (private, county/municipal, state, federal) will swap holdings with the SITLA lands to try to consolidate tracts, and usually within the same township the $/acre is pretty similar resulting in an acre-for-acre transaction. 

Hunting/fishing desirability is a value that takes part in this calculation of the fair market value, as does other recreational opportunities. The whole DWR hunting lease thing helps to ensure that SITLA swaps at least put some value to hunting access in considering these swaps. Sure, 100 acres of pretty great hunting (but no other value) might only be worth 1 acre with oil at the end of the day, but that is better than being assigned a fraction of a penny/acre in a proposed swap if hunting access wasn't given a fair market analysis. 

Complaining because SITLA is trying to fulfill their statutory obligations to get the highest fair market value for the use of their lands, which would result in a trickle down burden paid by hunters somewhere if the DWR lease tripled, sure seems like asking the state as a whole to subsidize your recreation. If the fair market value is $1M and DWR is paying $300k...well, either pony up the $ or accept that the law requires capitalism and sometimes that means you lose. 

Would that suck? sure, there are a number of SITLA lands that I have enjoyed hunting on them in the past, and it would suck to get priced out of them. But if you don't like that way of managing SITLA...then you need to get the law changed.


----------



## Kwalk3

johnnycake said:


> Complaining because SITLA is trying to fulfill their statutory obligations to get the highest fair market value for the use of their lands, which would result in a trickle down burden paid by hunters somewhere if the DWR lease tripled, sure seems like asking the state as a whole to subsidize your recreation.


I don't disagree with most of what you say. You definitely brought up an important distinction/clarification. I understand that SITLA has a job to do and don't fault them for doing it. My issue is on the legislative side of things and the fact that public access for ANY reason seems to be pretty low on the totem pole for most legislators. This is just another issue that has the potential to erode public access and I think it deserves push-back. I'm wagering it won't get any from the lawmakers though.

Regarding the state subsidizing our recreation, seems like the state is content to take the money that comes from the outdoor recreation industry with little consideration for the economic value it brings when introducing legislation.

I'm a lot more concerned about the State spending $14M on a frivolous lawsuit and appropriating millions of dollars to BGF than I am about SITLA accepting less than market value to allow access for activities that still have an indirect benefit to the state and the communities therein.


----------



## grizzly

Johhnycake, I agree with your hypothetical about acreage swaps, that was my intention by referring to large acreage of alkali salt flats. I also agree that SITLA has a job to do. 

The correlation I'm making is that SITLA is not public-land-hunter-friendly and that the "preferred" status of exchanging public land with SITLA is not something hunters should support. This obviously ties into the CWMU discussion since we're talking about what are currently federal lands going that direction.


----------



## Catherder

johnnycake said:


> Complaining because SITLA is trying to fulfill their statutory obligations to get the highest fair market value for the use of their lands, which would result in a trickle down burden paid by hunters somewhere if the DWR lease tripled, sure seems like asking the state as a whole to subsidize your recreation. If the fair market value is $1M and DWR is paying $300k...well, either pony up the $ or accept that the law requires capitalism and sometimes that means you lose.


Point is taken, but in reading through most of these responses, it would seem we all recognize this and are willing to pay more for the access. I know I did in my original main response. However, what "fair market value" is can be subject to considerable discussion.

I still assert that the bigger issue with the SITLA CWMU story is what it potentially means regarding TPL and what the State may plan to do if successful there.


----------



## paddler

The Division could micromanage the hunting access to SITLA lands, I suppose. They could make limited entry permits on the best properties, then charge enough to cover the lease payments. Fair market value is difficult to determine a priori, so just let the market decide. If the Book Cliff SITLA lands were made a limited entry permit, just allow enough permits at given price to cover the cost to the DWR. It could even be a partnership between SITLA and the DWR. The Division could pass through the revenue to SITLA, minus administrative costs.


----------



## Vanilla

Market dictated pricing for special hunts of publicly owned wildlife? You and Don Peay would get along nicely. 

Why stop with SITLA land? Maybe this is how the state can make the land transfer from the feds actually financially feasible. Sell camp spots at the most popular places at a premium. Let the market dictate. We can auction every tag in the state. We can put blinds for opening day of the duck hunt in there too. We should just let the market decide what to do with public resources. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> Market dictated pricing for special hunts of publicly owned wildlife? You and Don Peay would get along nicely.
> 
> Why stop with SITLA land? Maybe this is how the state can make the land transfer from the feds actually financially feasible. Sell camp spots at the most popular places at a premium. Let the market dictate. We can auction every tag in the state. We can put blinds for opening day of the duck hunt in there too. We should just let the market decide what to do with public resources. What could possibly go wrong?


http://www.hcn.org/articles/an-experiment-in-privatizing-public-land-fails-after-14-years

From the article, "Despite the efforts of many trustees and the staff for 14 years, the preserve never managed to earn enough money from hunting, grazing and tourism to pay even a third of its bills. Heavy logging and overgrazing had depleted forests and grasslands well before the preserve became public land. High fees and restrictions on public access kept the income from recreation low, and to a large extent, the public continued to perceive the preserve as private land. Elk hunting paid well, but the preserve broke even on cattle grazing only by charging ranchers more than seven times what other federal agencies are charging."

Chances are, even your absurd idea would go terribly wrong!


----------



## Catherder

Very interesting.

Quote from the link.

"Then there’s the real question: How will states manage the public frustration of Westerners who live in a region where our public lands are at the heart of our cultures and economy?"


Thought it was worth repeating here, especially for the folks in the 435 that want TPL so badly......


----------



## elkfromabove

Catherder said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> Quote from the link.
> 
> "Then there's the real question: How will states manage the public frustration of Westerners who live in a region where our public lands are at the heart of our cultures and economy?"


Or, for that matter, the public frustration of non-residents who use those public lands to escape their own cultures and economy? Almost every time I hunt or fish, I run into someone who isn't from Utah, but who came here to do just that. In fact, I can't count the number of Las Vegas residents I've met who own cabins on Cedar Mountain (Duck Creek, Panguitch Lake, Mammoth Creek and other neighborhoods that don't even have names) and who come almost every weekend. Most of them buy cabins just because they are close to or border public lands. Local outdoorsmen/women aren't the only ones who would be hurt by this move.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Market dictated pricing for special hunts of publicly owned wildlife? You and Don Peay would get along nicely.
> 
> Why stop with SITLA land? Maybe this is how the state can make the land transfer from the feds actually financially feasible. Sell camp spots at the most popular places at a premium. Let the market dictate. We can auction every tag in the state. We can put blinds for opening day of the duck hunt in there too. We should just let the market decide what to do with public resources. What could possibly go wrong?


 Did you think me serious? I've never been in favor of SITLA's mandate to prioritize revenue generation above all other concerns. I'm a public land proponent, a conservationist and a Do Gooder, after all.


----------



## Lonetree

This is just one more reason why I am shopping for a new home outside of Utah.

There is allot I dislike about Oregon, but Oregonians(not just hipster pukes, but hunters, and fishermen as well) stepped up and saved the Elliott State forest there, something that most never thought possible. That situation has allot of parallels to Utah, well, except for any push back here.

And my friends in WA. They show up in the hundreds to their wildlife board meetings to call BS on the corrupt system. 

I'll see where the Outdoor Retailer show lands, and go from there......... 

We reap what we sow.


----------



## king eider

I had an interesting conversation with an employee of SITLA today. His insight was intriguing and useful to understand the issue. Lots of chest beating going on between the DWR and SITLA. I tend to side with sitla on this issue. One must understand that sitla is NOT public land. Once you get that through your head you can see how one state agency is trying to do what the other already does and that is make money off big game permits and access. Sitla is somewhat trying to follow the model that is being used in Colorado. I learned a lot of insightful info. My source says it will take the governor to interview with the school board and produce some $$ or it will eventually end up in court with a judge ruling on the matter.


----------



## Kwalk3

It would be a travesty if we ended up in the same boat as Colorado in regard to access to trust lands. That's exactly what I would like to avoid

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder

Kwalk3 said:


> It would be a travesty if we ended up in the same boat as Colorado in regard to access to trust lands. That's exactly what I would like to avoid
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


I hear you, but I think it is inevitable that SITLA has sufficient leverage to increase what they get from the DWR. Determining how much that is is probably beyond my pay grade, but I agree in the hope that general access can be maintained. SITLA CWMU's probably sends access into a death spiral generally on trust lands.


----------



## weaversamuel76

Is the sitla board payed for services? 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kwalk3

Catherder said:


> I hear you, but I think it is inevitable that SITLA has sufficient leverage to increase what they get from the DWR. Determining how much that is is probably beyond my pay grade, but I agree in the hope that general access can be maintained. SITLA CWMU's probably sends access into a death spiral generally on trust lands.


I agree that the cost of doing business is likely to go up on SITLA lands. While I don't think that is awesome news, I understand it given SITLAS core objectives.

I just hate to see things that are currently accessible closed off to the public, and I don't want the DWR/Wildlife Board, etc. to provide more incentive to shut the public out via allowing CWMU status.

If the SITLA employee mentioned above wants to follow the Colorado model, that is concerning.

We would potentially go from this:

_Trust lands are generally open to the public for responsible recreational activities including hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use._ https://trustlands.utah.gov/business-groups/surface/recreational-use-of-trust-lands/

to this:

_ State Trust Lands in Colorado currently total nearly 3 million surface acres. The federal government endowed the lands to Colorado in 1876, the year the Centennial State officially joined the union. Public access for wildlife-related recreation on 500,000 acres of State Trust Land (STL) is made possible through the Public Access Program, a lease agreement between the State Land Board and Colorado Parks & Wildlife. Signs at individual properties describe allowed uses, rules and time frames for public._ use.http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages/StateTrustLands.aspx

Also, of note from the article in the OP: "Colorado is at the high end at $1.3 million, while Idaho, Wyoming and Arizona charge nothing, according to Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Director Greg Sheehan."

Thus, Colorado Parks and Wildlife are paying $1.3M for access to roughly 17% of their trust lands.

If we get too far down this road there is potential to lose a lot of currently accessible hunting grounds.


----------



## Packout

I was a member of the Habitat Council and was involved appropriating $500,000+ to the SITLA lease. That lease climbed from $500,000 + 5% each year over 10 years. There was heartburn 10 years ago over $500,000. I can't imagine the feelings today when they are talking $3-5 million. 

Where can the UDWR come up with $3+ million? Raise deer tags $10 and that is only $800,000. Raise all big game permits $10 and you are still short of $2 million.

The State is going to need to put some State money into the lease if it is to happen. General Funds to open the lands for "recreation" such as hunting, fishing, hiking, atvs, etc. I don't see anyway around it if the Utah Public wants to access the SITLA lands.


----------



## paddler

Maybe the money for access to SITLA shouldn't come from the DWR at all. Maybe the state could come up with the cash. Hunting isn't the only activity that benefits from access to those lands.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> Maybe the money for access to SITLA shouldn't come from the DWR at all. Maybe the state could come up with the cash. Hunting isn't the only activity that benefits from access to those lands.


No, but it is the only one that has a specific dollar amount attached to it, also thanks to the state. Notice how the basis for SITLA's complaint is that they would be making more money if they were allowed to form a CWMU and start selling tags. Bad policy begets bad policy apparently.


----------



## Catherder

I would certainly favor all or part of the sum coming from the general fund and I think the general public would favor it. However seeing it happen would be dependent on the same politicians that are gung ho for TPL and privatization signing off on it. I suspect their response would be "let them make their money on CWMU's" and that would be that. 

I'm not optimistic.


----------



## paddler

I suppose SITLA made a lot of sense in the beginning. Not much tax base, and it was probably a significant contributor to our schools. Now it's just under 1%. Also, if the general fund paid the lease, then SITLA returned money to the State for education, it's not clear to me how that makes much sense. Who pays for the services like fire suppression on SITLA lands?


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Maybe the money for access to SITLA shouldn't come from the DWR at all. Maybe the state could come up with the cash. Hunting isn't the only activity that benefits from access to those lands.


Holy crap, there truly is a first time for everything. I agree with this 100%.

For the record, I don't mind if there was a slight increase in license fees to help with this. But the valuation of the land use is flawed at the number they've put out, and I really don't like SITLA extorting hunters. If the state wanted to add a $2 surcharge to all big game permits earmarked for SITLA access, I'd support that. The rest can come from both a real valuation being the lease cost down to reasonable levels and the balance can come from the general fund.


----------



## Kwalk3

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/16/new-pact-keeps-34-million-acres-open-to-utah-hunters-fishers/

Latest update.


----------



## Vanilla

Glad the state found a way to make it work. SITLA's extortion still bothers me, though.


----------



## Kwalk3

Sounds like Herbert actually backed the DWR in respect to making it work too. Never thought I would give him any props for anything positive regarding public access. But, it seems like he actually may have helped a bit here.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Glad to see access has been retained.....but let’s just all remember this

“The federal government ceded some lands to Utah at statehood to be administered “in trust” for schools. They might be publicly owned, but trust lands are not managed for multiple use and public access as federal lands are.”


----------



## BPturkeys

I am pleased with the final results of this negotiations. It amount to only a small increase...$775K to $1 million and is an absolute bargain for this much land. 3 1/2 million acres is a lot of property. 
As to the question of become CWMU's, keep in mind that SITLA is in complete control of these lands and could, if they wanted to, totally close trespass and sell trespass permits instead of hunting only permits. It wouldn't need to be a CWMU for them to make a ton of money on trespass permits only. Would you pay say $500 for the right to trespass, hunt, fish, camp and recreate on over 3,000,000 acres of diversified Utah real estate? If they only sold 15,000...that $7,500,00.00...7 times what they are getting now! And that still leaves all the other cash cows...extraction industries, grazing, personal leases and others on the table generating millions of $. Oh, and don't forget...SITLA can sell the land anytime they want to private owners...gone and posted KEEP OUT forever! 
Yes, thank the current DWR guys for cutting a pretty good deal on land that could have easily slipped through our fingers for good.


----------



## DallanC

One time $500 or $500 per year? Is that per person or family?


-DallanC


----------



## BPturkeys

DallanC said:


> One time $500 or $500 per year? Is that per person or family?
> 
> -DallanC


Helll, I don't know, just throwin out some "for example" numbers

Maybe say, $500 one time, annual membership fee's...gees, the possibilities are endless, but given 3,000,000 acres, there's lots a schemes to make money.


----------



## Vanilla

Here is my take: Neither of these parties were entirely in control of the situation, even if they try to act like they were. 

SITLA, as has been hammered out before, is a different animal than our other "public lands." They could lease them, sell them, etc. as they deem necessary. Selling SITLA land without a land swap is generally not done, however, because it's not just about maximizing income today, but forever. So holding on to the land is a wiser "investment" for the future than selling it today. They are not selling all that land. So I'm not really worried about that. But, SITLA could cut off public access if they chose, so the DWR was at their mercy here to some extent. 

The flip side of that is SITLA isn't getting a CWMU without the DWR sign off. And if they really wanted to play hardball, and try to do what bpturkeys suggested, the DWR simply doesn't have to issue tags for those areas. Re-draw boundaries, close off areas to hunting, etc. This is all within the prerogative of the DWR (and mostly Wildlife Board). So SITLA is also at the DWR's mercy on this one as well. 

This seems like a lot of petty fighting that is unnecessary, and that is why I'm glad they came to a compromise. It sounds like a real compromise, and not the kind we see so much today where they say "We need to compromise, but give me everything I want."


----------



## Catherder

A couple of comments.

1. I agree that the increase to 1 million dollars annually seems like a bargain and feared a negotiated sum would be much more. I think the sportsman got a decent deal with this.

2. From the article;

"Under the deal, wildlife and trust lands officials' disagreement will persist, but the school trust fund will be fattened by $1 million annually courtesy of a legislative appropriation *that has to be renewed every year*, according to Styler."

"In the new deal, that "inflationary adjustment" was lowered to 3.5 percent yearly, *with the agreement effective for an additional five years*."

It would appear that the legislature needs to approve the appropriation every year and the current compromise is for 5 years. This would seem to mean that we could potentially have the appropriation debated every year and we will go through this again for sure in 5 years. We haven't heard the last of the battle between the DWR and SITLA.


----------

