# Selling off of State Lands...A Done Deal (Eventually)



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

Just noticed this article in the Salt Lake Tribune today. Anyone who believes that it is not the intent of Utah to eventually divest itself of State land is kidding themselves. In fact, the article states that approximately 1/3 of Utah's private land used to be State Trust Land!

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4485146-155/hunters-conservation-groups-decry-privatization-of

Support of this Federal land transfer to State ownership scheme, along with the RMEF Expo debacle, and DWR's glossing over of the Nebo ram has me at serious odds with our GOP leadership. I consider myself a staunch conservative, but it is getting to the point that I can no longer tolerate this type of leadership and corruption and may have to look elsewhere when casting my vote in Nov.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Herbert and most of the house reps are real estate developers. If you don't think that's their end game in getting these lands transferred you are grossly misinformed. I'm the same a staunch conservative, but will be voting different in most local races. The USAC has a great voters guide on their website as far as reps and stream access are concerend.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

The sale of trust lands managed by SITLA should not come as any surprise to anyone. Generating revenue for the school trust fund is their sole reason for existing, this is nothing new.

I'm guessing this thread should also be in a different section, just like the one 1-I posted yesterday? -O|o-

I am also weighing the candidates' stands on this lands issue very heavily this November.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Again, please do not put land grab threads in Big Game.

.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Check out what Wyoming recently found out:
http://blog.trcp.org/2016/10/19/rep...dium=email&utm_campaign=Roosevelt Report 2015
Not exactly a big surprise, but still worth sharing! Why can't Utah figure this out?


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

The Utah federal lands grab and SITLA are 2 different animals. I hate the idea of the State taking over the current Federal Lands and Herbert, Greene, Ivory and many others have stated that some of those lands will be sold.

BUT-- The SITLA issue is different. These are not public lands. They are not open to hiking, hunting, fishing, etc UNLESS SITLA allows the use. For example the UDWR pays $700,000+ each year to lease SITLA lands for hunting and fishing.

The real problem with SITLA selling the lands is the SITLA employees make big bonuses when they sell the SITLA lands. SITLA employees have an incentive to SELL the school trust lands. Such a short sighted approach. The SITLA fund is over $2 billion and generates almost $50 million each year. There is no need to sell their land assests-- EXCEPT to enrich the current SITLA manager with large bonuses from the selling of our great-grandchildren's birthright.

..


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Agreed it's time to hold Utah republicans accountable. There is a difference between being a conservative candidate and being a party puppet who does whatever they want and answers favors because a voter base will vote you in anyway. Admittedly as much as I care about this topic the more I've thought about it I cannot stomach voting for Hillary for any reason on a national level(or Trump), but I can stomach voting for Weinholtz who isn't perfect but is a good democratic candidate, along with others running in this state who are democrats. I'm a registered republican and don't agree with them on every issue but I also don't agree with the republican leaders in this state either and it's time to pick my poison. Elect democrats to our state legislature and hold those pushing this issue accountable on a local level. This terrible idea started in this state and most those who were there when it started are still in their elected seat today. It's time to vote them out and hold them accountable as sportsmen if we truly care about wildlife, public land, and our outdoor heritage in this state.


----------



## Bucksnort (Nov 15, 2007)

Conservative here, but this issue has me voting for every Democrat in local elections. We as sportsman need to send a message. They have ignored my letters and emails. Only through votes will they listen. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bowhunter50 (Oct 14, 2014)

What can we do to keep our public lands that will actually make a difference? Is there an organization out there doing a good job that we can join? Or should we create our own?? I just moved to Kansas and it sucks because you either have to lease private land or know someone that will let you hunt theirs. I plan on going back to Utah every year to hunt for that reason. It would suck if Utah comes to that point as well. What can we do aside from talking about it on an Internet forum?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

As was stated, SITLA lands are meant to be sold, leased, or whatever else to generate money for public schools. I'm good with that. What I'm not good with, is that every neighboring state to Utah, has 4-5 times the money in their land trust, meaning, they've done 4-5 times more with their lands for public schools, than Utah has. I'm not against SITLA doing their job, or even bonuses for good performance. I am against them sucking at their job. And when you compare Utah to our neighbors, it is clear that Utah's SITLA is bad at their job.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

the way I see it
As long as we have these lands to sell there will be no control of school district budgets. 
These people continue to go over budget every year and then they sell off lands to make up thier budget deficits. Since no one in any leadership position know the meaning of a budget this is how they operate. If you want change. Vote. Get these school administrators out. It's very hard for me to say but I will be voting for some people this year with a D next to their names. If we allow the same people to remain in office and we expect different results then we are the crazy ones


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> As was stated, SITLA lands are meant to be sold, leased, or whatever else to generate money for public schools. I'm good with that. What I'm not good with, is that every neighboring state to Utah, has 4-5 times the money in their land trust, meaning, they've done 4-5 times more with their lands for public schools, than Utah has. I'm not against SITLA doing their job, or even bonuses for good performance. I am against them sucking at their job. And when you compare Utah to our neighbors, it is clear that Utah's SITLA is bad at their job.


Great point. I'm not sure why that is but as I see it, there seems to be 2 possible reasons.

1. Our legislature is constantly scheming ways to get their mitts on SITLA funds or tinker with it. Right now, there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot to change how SITLA works. From my initial reading, it doesn't appear to be for the better. Another recent proposal was to use SITLA funds to finance the land grab fight/litigation against the Feds. Fortunately, that one didn't get approved. (yet)

2. It sees that SITLA's emphasis has been on looking at land sales when possible. Of course, when a parcel is sold, they get the sales proceeds, but the land will no longer able to generate future revenue for SITLA. Leasing seems to be a better way in the long run to create a longer lasting revenue stream. However, that could be a double edge sword for sportmen, as SITLA could start leasing some of their land to big dollar hunters and closing it to the general public, as Colorado does.


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

Bowhunter50 said:


> What can we do to keep our public lands that will actually make a difference? Is there an organization out there doing a good job that we can join? Or should we create our own?? I just moved to Kansas and it sucks because you either have to lease private land or know someone that will let you hunt theirs. I plan on going back to Utah every year to hunt for that reason. It would suck if Utah comes to that point as well. What can we do aside from talking about it on an Internet forum?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There are quite a few! Backcountry hunters and anglers and rmef to name a few. One of the biggest issues is that even if they wanted to keep it public the state will not be able to afford it. therefore they would end up selling and who knows where the money would go but I would highly doubt that it would benefit anyone.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Bowhunter50 said:


> What can we do to keep our public lands that will actually make a difference? Is there an organization out there doing a good job that we can join? Or should we create our own?? I just moved to Kansas and it sucks because you either have to lease private land or know someone that will let you hunt theirs. I plan on going back to Utah every year to hunt for that reason. It would suck if Utah comes to that point as well. What can we do aside from talking about it on an Internet forum?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Start by watching the Randy newberg videos. 
He and his people are leading the way for the hunters. Then get involved. 
There are a lot of groups heavily involved right now like TRCP, RMEF, BHA. 
Go look them up like their Facebook pages. And start speeding the word


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

+1 on Randy Newberg watch his YouTube stuff and listen to his podcasts he is the guy to listen to and will keep you very informed. Also the meateater podcast hosted a guy from backcountry hunters and anglers on the podcast and it was very informative


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> As was stated, SITLA lands are meant to be sold, leased, or whatever else to generate money for public schools. I'm good with that. What I'm not good with, is that every neighboring state to Utah, has 4-5 times the money in their land trust, meaning, they've done 4-5 times more with their lands for public schools, than Utah has. I'm not against SITLA doing their job, or even bonuses for good performance. I am against them sucking at their job. And when you compare Utah to our neighbors, it is clear that Utah's SITLA is bad at their job.


I would like to point out one thing: not all land is created equal.

First, there is a very real reason that Utah was the first state to receive 4 sections per township and not the usual 2: The land in Utah is not as productive on average as the land in say CO, WY, NM or even AZ. I don't have the intimate familiarity with the SITLA management needed to be able to conclude if it is mismanaged or not (sure, I have my suspicions...), and I don't think looking at the land trust funds is an end-all indicator. Then again, that we have 1/4 the funds with TWICE the land makes me curious if our lands are really 1/8 as productive per acre. Good questions to think about and look into if this is an issue that really bothers you.


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> As was stated, SITLA lands are meant to be sold, leased, or whatever else to generate money for public schools. I'm good with that. What I'm not good with, is that every neighboring state to Utah, has 4-5 times the money in their land trust, meaning, they've done 4-5 times more with their lands for public schools, than Utah has. I'm not against SITLA doing their job, or even bonuses for good performance. I am against them sucking at their job. And when you compare Utah to our neighbors, it is clear that Utah's SITLA is bad at their job.


Keep in mind that one of the reasons those stated have 4-5 times the school money in their coffers is because they have fewer Large families.

Anytime you get the majority of families to have 4,5 or even 6+ children for every two tax paying adults, you're going to have an underfunded condition in schools.

I'd like to see SITLA sell off all their lands, then budget the lump sum accordingly. I'd guess that the lump sum would garner more interest in a bank than it does as vacant property.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

If it is of interest to anyone, here is the constitutional ballot initiative we will vote on. (constitutional amendment B, pg 37-41)

https://elections.utah.gov/Media/Default/2016 Election/Voter Information Pamphlet Full 3.pdf

In re-reading the contents, I will still vote no, but it may not be that bad. My main concern is that right now, only the interest and dividends can be distributed to the schools, preserving, by statute, the principal funds. The proposal now does this.

"This change
means that all money earned from the investment of money in the Fund - not just money earned as interest or
dividends - will be available to be distributed for the support of public schools." (capped at 4% annually)

I worry that this would allow for the fund to be raided and depleted during a run of consecutive lean investment years.

Anyways, its something we will be voting on this year.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

One of the properties that was for sale at this last auction was a direct result of my interest to purchase. I've been to a couple of auctions. Their is a outfit that shows up and purchases over half of all properties for sale. The guy spends money like you unroll toilet paper. Learned a lot about how and why SITLA works. I'm sure most of you don't know but 1/3 of all private land in the state of Utah started out as school trust lands. It's not public land, it's trust land. If the trust land is not using it to generate money for the trust fund then they allow the public to access it. End of story.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Kinekiller - family size has nothing to do with it. That would be true of the money distributed, but not the trust. Only the interest on the trust may be distributed, not the trust amount itself. What money Utah gets off the trust certainly gets spread thinner than in other states, but they also have a fraction coming from it. Utah has roughly 2 billion that they can collect interest and investment income. Every neighboring state has over $10 billion. 

As I've looked into this pretty deeply over the last two decades, the Legislature has raided the trust a couple of times because they refuse to tax anything. And that is a problem. But SITLA now sits outside of legislative control. It is not subject to the legislature, which is a dang good thing. 

King eider is right though - SITLA lands are private lands, not public. There are cases the public is allowed to use them, but they are still considered private lands. 

Johnnycake- as for your assertion that not all land is created equal - that is true. And I get that. But take for example any SITLA lands that were in the UTTR - those were swapped out for other, more useful lands. Consolidation and blocking of lands through land swaps with BLM have been been done in many places, and continue today. And without fail, SITLA ends up with lands that have much higher income potential, either for development, minerals, or other revenue generating values. I would expect slight differences in each state, and their land trust, but Utah isn't even in the same ball park as any of our neighboring states. And those neighboring states all have thousands of acres of land with marginal income value. Yet they've still done more with them than Utah has. 4-5 times more.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Good points Gary, and again I want to stress that I really haven't looked much into the management of SITLA lands it UT or elsewhere. But, I hear a couple of things going on:
1. If the state gets the fed lands, they'll sell it/lease it off to development, and that is bad
2. Look at the lands the state already has, and see that is just what they are doing to them! Selling them off or leasing for development (primarily SITLA land)
3. Look at how our SITLA funds are so much worse off than the surrounding states! 

What I see as a whole picture is that maybe UT does LESS to develop the SITLA lands than surrounding states? Possibly that would be indicative that if the fed transfer were to happen that UT wouldn't run out and put it all on the auction block? Seriously though, the transfer is never gonna happen from the legal perspective.


----------

