# Public land sales



## fobit (Mar 1, 2017)

The UWN crowd is a pretty formidable group. I think we could pressure the state legislature to make a law that any public land sold in the future has an easement allowing anyone with a Utah hunting or fishing licence to continue doing their thing. anyone buying this land would have to recognize that it comes with this easement. It is not unusual to retain mineral rights, grazing rights or trespass rights.
If they did that I wouldn't complain about them selling the land.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Great idea...but...most of this land that is being sold belongs to SITLA and is not technically public land. Such a law would need a revision of the laws covering SITLA and the chances of getting that law changed to favor the general public, never mind a special group like hunters and fisherman...well, it just ain't going to happen.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

That sure would drive down the value of the property.


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

Will never happen (period)
If your talking about SITLA, it is not “public” ground.
I took a piece of SITLA ground all the way to auction. Did not buy it though and no one bid on it. SITLA = Greedy!!!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

How much money do you plan to raise? I assure you, those that oppose this will be in the millions before you eat lunch tomorrow if that bill is drafted tonight.


----------



## outn'bout1 (Sep 17, 2007)

The idea you have at its core is great. Your understanding of the issue isn't fully intact though. SITLA land is NOT public land. That's a a fact. It's not public land that is being sold. 

The only reason we sportsmen have any access is that the UDWR has to pay SITLA a substantial amount of money each year for access, in the millions. This is something most people don't know. 

The issue is more complex but those are a couple points that come to mind after seeing this post.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

And the same would be true if the states got their wish and got the land transfer deal


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Hoopermat said:


> And the same would be true if the states got their wish and got the land transfer deal


Absolutely correct. The idea of obtaining federal lands and placing them in a SITLA type (sell/trade/lease with raising money as the bottom line) management program is precisely what the current land grabbing bunch of administrators and legislators want. They openly admit it and have said it many times. Sorry if this sounds political but Utah Republican are not friends to any outdoor enthusiasts or users of public land...is that you Mr. hunter/fisherman?


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

BPturkeys said:


> Absolutely correct. The idea of obtaining federal lands and placing them in a SITLA type (sell/trade/lease with raising money as the bottom line) management program is precisely what the current land grabbing bunch of administrators and legislators want. They openly admit it and have said it many times. Sorry if this sounds political but Utah Republican are not friends to any outdoor enthusiasts or users of public land...is that you Mr. hunter/fisherman?


Honestly, I don't think any of our legislators regardless of party have our best interests at heart. They go for the quick fix, that gives their political careers an immediate return. That's a loaded statement, and I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Honestly, I don't think any of our legislators regardless of party have our best interests at heart. They go for the quick fix, that gives their political careers an immediate return. That's a loaded statement, and I'll just leave it at that.


You appear to be espousing an equivalence between our Republican legislators and the Democrats. That would be incorrect. Every anti-public land measure here in Utah has been promoted by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, typically along party lines. Honestly.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

paddler said:


> You appear to be espousing an equivalence between our Republican legislators and the Democrats. That would be incorrect. Every anti-public land measure here in Utah has been promoted by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, typically along party lines. Honestly.


Nothing fires me up faster then the word Democrat. I'll be kind and say, that I wasn't referring to JUST public land. I said it was a loaded statement, don't make me unpackage it.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Nothing fires me up faster then the word Democrat. I'll be kind and say, that I wasn't referring to JUST public land. I said it was a loaded statement, don't make me unpackage it.


Oh, feel free, by all means. Maybe a PM would be better. No obligation, though, I won't "make" you do anything.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

No, there wouldn't be any point in it. Your not likely to change my mind, nor I yours.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Lone_Hunter said:


> No, there wouldn't be any point in it. Your not likely to change my mind, nor I yours.


See? We already agree on something.


----------

