# State vs Federal Land Ownership/Management?



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

I have heard a lot of talk lately about the State of Utah taking over the management of Federal Lands within its borders. I've gotta be honest, I haven't paid as much attention to the subject as I should. Subsequently, I'm pretty ignorant on the subject, but I would like to know what the potential implications are if the state did manage those lands, or if it remained in the hands of the feds. Can someone please enlighten me on the subject? I'd like to hear all perspectives, and form an opinion of my own. As a sportsman, any changes in use of public lands concerns me, be it for better or worse. TIA.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

For starters, your state taxes will go up, or other state funded programs will be cut (highway maintenance, schools, etc) to fund and run the newly acquired "enterprise".

Another speculative outcome is pitting one state against another on usage of state lands. Without the fed being involved, certain constitutional protections are negated (interstate commerce) and non-residents might not be able to use those lands like they can now. So, if one state will not allow NR's to use it freely, better get used to staying home because the state you may be a NR in will return the favor likewise.

And, of course, the state can always sell off bits and pieces of it if needed...


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Thanks for the response, HDE.

Taxes makes sense. I suppose that rather than increasing state sales tax, income tax, or property taxes, they could institute a use tax in the form of tolls at every entrance to public lands, or do like they do in the Uinta mountains and require you to have paid daily fees for your vehicle if you are parking anywhere in the area. That would be lame, but I guess those who use the land would share the biggest part of the burden of paying to have it taken care of. 

The part that worries me most is the last point you mentioned, in that they will sell it off. If there's one thing we have learned about the government, its that it is usually bad with money. In time, they'll need money, and selling off the land would provide the biggest ROI. I hate to see when land that has been open access to the public is closed off. On the other hand, I have seen the same thing happen with Federal land around Moab. While you can still access the land, the use of the land is greatly limited. 

Interesting points. I am anxious to hear others.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The biggest proponent and political leader carrying the flag in Utah is State Rep Ivory from West Jordan. Why is that important? Ivory Homes. Real estate development. 

and the push if accomplished, would result in not all, but certainly the most prime lands, or better yet, access to those lands, being sold to generate money for the State School Funds, or that is how it is being sold. Envision all the canyons along the Wasatch to be private lands, open for a fee (ski tag) but closed to anyone that doesn't have a key to the gate. Envision hunting switching from primarily public lands, to the prime canyons, valleys, or other swaths being sold and turned into CWMUs, or high fence operations, where elk hunts start around $15,000, or high fenced areas be turned into places to shoot exotics of every kind - again for a healthy fee. Envision the mouth of a canyon with a great fishing stream being bought, and to get to the stream, you'll pay a trespass fee. Envision a huge shift of management from a large scale ecosystem or watershed approach, to small scale (smaller at least - probably 10-15,000 acre chunks) where continuity of the watershed and functioning ecosystem are tossed out for what is best for me (like you see in the city where we live in a desert, yet everyone has kentucky blue grass they overwater five nights/week). Sure, the green grass looks great, but the watershed suffers. 

That is what comes with the transfer of federal lands to states. But hey. It is all for the children that will live in the Ivory homes built at all of these locations. But hey, that's just my opinion.


----------



## goonsquad (Sep 15, 2010)

If the state of Utah EVER gets a hold of those lands, most of the lands will be leased on a long term contract. Oil and Cattle will get them and then the remaining lands will be sold off to private interests. Hunters and fishermen will have fewer and fewer areas they can go. 
To see an example of what I am talking about, see how much access there presently is on the weber or the provo.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

The Mormon church has a habit of purchasing large tracts of land and has the coffers and interest to buy more land in Utah (if available) then any other concern on earth. 

Ivory homes is small potatoes in this debate. But I guess every ostrich needs a hole to stick its head in. 

The majority of acreage in Utah is currently being utilized as graze for cattle. Not potential golf coarse's ski resorts home developments or eve gas coal and oil not logging either. It's graze. 

Who's the biggest cattle rancher in the US? The Mormon church. 

I'd be far more concerned with Deseret land and live stock growing to 30 million acres before I would worry about anything else if this stupid land control bs ever went anywhere. 

Pfff ivory homes! 

How about Don Peay? He's got to have something to do with this.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I see what you are saying, but grazing is the farthest thing from anything. The best grazing lands in Utah are already private. And the rest - well - pretty marginal at best. That is, if you've ever been in high quality grazing lands - Nebraska's Sand Hills, Eastern Montana, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida. Heck, DLL's Utah operation is small beans compared to their Florida operation where grass grows year round, and you measure forage in AUMs/Acre instead of section. It takes a whole lot of creative mormon dislike and conspiracy thinking to think they are behind the whole public lands transfer.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Or just not in denial.

When was the last time ivory homes or anybody else for that matter purchased 400,000 acres for over $500 million dollars. The church did just a few years ago. 

Talk about aspirations to acquire land. DLL makes Ted Turner look like a gentleman rancher. 

I'm sure the LDS church has a horse in the Utah land swap debacle. Except you won't hear them say boo about it. They don't concern themselves with political issues. Like gay marriage, drinking, education and immigration.


----------



## nocturnalenemy (Jun 26, 2011)

Iron Bear said:


> Or just not in denial.
> 
> When was the last time ivory homes or anybody else for that matter purchased 400,000 acres for over $500 million dollars. The church did just a few years ago.
> 
> ...


When have they ever said they don't concern themselves with political issues? OF COURSE THEY DO!


----------



## spencerD (Jan 14, 2014)

Aside from Iron Bear's wildly interesting comments, I second what has been said here in regards to land management.

If the state acquires it, it WILL be sold off to developers. The land will then become private, and we'll be locked out of our heritage. There's no gray area there, as far as I'm concerned. Herbert is in bed with developers, Ivory is as well, and all these politicians stand to make a whole lot of money if they sell OUR public lands.

I write a monthly fly fishing column for the Standard-Examiner, and a few months ago I used it to cover this debate. http://www.standard.net/Recreation/...-and-What-it-Means-for-Fishermen-in-Utah.html

I go into some more detail there if you're looking for additional information. But the short of it is, if the state gets hold of the land, we can say goodbye to it.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

When this land purchase couldn't pass on its own merits. Utah politicians hid this purchase in a homeland security bill that couldn't fail.

So yes the LDS church is actively trying to acquire land from the Feds in Utah.

http://m.heraldextra.com/news/local...55ad-9212-c23a4783ed20.html?mobile_touch=true


----------



## spencerD (Jan 14, 2014)

So BYU buys the rest of the mountain that they owned the lower half of, and now you're dreaming up some half-baked conspiracy that them dad-gum Mormons want all the federal land in the state? I buy a lot of conspiracies but even that one's a stretch. 

This is a really pathetic attempt to smear a group, compadre. If the LDS church had gone and bought thousands of acres of prime elk land, then put up a fence and said no one could hunt it, I'd see a very valid concern there. 

We can speculate why the State Senate didn't pick this bill up in 2012/2013, but in the end does it really matter? I'm not a fan of Chaffetz and I think Hatch is one of the worst human beings alive, but I fail to see the foul play here. They did something to help out a controlling interest in Utah Valley and the state as a whole. Isn't that what politicians do? 

You're gonna have to come up with something better here. And if you're trying to fight against the LDS church instead of the real enemy here - the land developers who want oil and gas leases on our hunting and fishing lands - then you're wasting your time.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

It doesn't matter who the He** buys the land, the Mormons, Ted Turner, the Chinese,...don't matter at all...what does matter is that IF THE LAND GETS INTO THE HANDS OF THE STATE OF UTAH IT WILL GET SOLD OFF, LOCKED UP AND OUT OF REACH TO ALL AMERICA! Private property is always NO TRESPASSING! 
Doesn't matter what your interest, hunting, fishing, biking, hiking, equestrian, bird watching, ATVing, you name it...YOU WILL BE LOCKED OUT!!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

spencerD said:


> This is a really pathetic attempt to smear a group, compadre. If the LDS church had gone and bought thousands of acres of prime elk land, then put up a fence and said no one could hunt it, I'd see a very valid .


Funny you say this.

You used to be able to hunt woodruff prior to DLL.

Agreed any land sale is undesirable.

But you are all are being quit ignorant to think the church hasn't a care about the land in Utah.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

What Ivory is doing should be illegal.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> Funny you say this.
> 
> You used to be able to hunt woodruff prior to DLL.
> 
> ...


DLL was in private ownership before the Church bought it. So they did not take public land, and close it to the public. They took private land, and it remains private land.

And way back in the 70s before the Church bought it, you could hunt most any private land if you asked and promised not to tear up the place. After too many years of slob hunters everywhere, land owners from Idaho to Arizona got sick of it and locked gates and put up signs.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Iron Bear must have been excommunicated.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Getting back to Chasers original question, I've noticed that a few "talking heads" are promising that the land grab will not result in wholesale sale of public lands into the private sector. I find these promises extremely dubious. Besides the fact that folks like Ivory have stated that their goal of the land grab is to place public lands in the private sector, there are formidible issues that would arise if the State took over federal lands. Issues like fire control are notable, but IMO, the biggest one is PILT (payments in lieu of taxes). The federal government pays (mostly) rural counties payments for the public lands in a jurisdiction that somewhat take the place of private land being taxed by the county. These monies make up a sizable amount of revenue to many rural counties. If the state took over these lands, Federal PILT would disappear. If the State didn't pay the counties, then the counties would be in economic crisis. If the State paid out PILT, it would be a major drain on their bottom line. It would thus be economic NECESSITY that the state would quickly need to start selling of land to aid both their bottom line and the rural counties that use PILT as their economic cash cow.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

martymcfly73 said:


> Iron Bear must have been excommunicated.


Maybe, but we know how much he hates cougars. That has probably extended his thinking to the university that has a cougar as a mascot and the LDS church in general.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

My concern wouldn't be so much that someone would swoop in and buy up 400,000 acres of land from the state to form their own private hunting ranch or something. The far more dangerous thing, and more realistic thing, would be for a private entity - developer - to buy up the land at the mouth of a canyon with the only road to an area, or buy up the lands at every access point. So with purchase of say three 1,000 acre parcels, would essentially landlock all the state lands within that area, cutting it off from everyone else. Those 1,000 acres could be subdivided into ranchettes behind a master gate, providing private access to public lands, and cutting the public out. Think about the development around Jordanelle, where private parcels control arms of that reservoir. Thank goodness BuRec built the two state parks before they let any other lands be sold, or that would be a virtually private lake. The same thing can/will happen to the large tracts of land.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

GaryFish said:


> My concern wouldn't be so much that someone would swoop in and buy up 400,000 acres of land from the state to form their own private hunting ranch or something. The far more dangerous thing, and more realistic thing, would be for a private entity - developer - to buy up the land at the mouth of a canyon with the only road to an area, or buy up the lands at every access point.


That is a realistic concern. I wouldn't see the entire state going away for private purchase/use, but large tracks - especially the ones that are near or among private parcels already.

Just to set the record straight - oil and gas companies do not "buy" the land surface, they lease the minerals underneath and use anywhere from 1 to 5 acres for the wellpad. It would not be very feasible or economic to buy the land first. The state would make revenue two ways - surface damages for the wellpad and then royalties from the production of hydrocarbons.

For example, revenues in the state of NM total on average of $1.2 billion each year from state leases in production from oil and gas companies. I don't reckon a state (even UT) could say no to those kinds of revenues, and no, the Land of Enchantment is not a desolate waste land...


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

In away oil/gas is not really as big a concern as other "for sure" consequences of Utah's ownership of the current Federal ground. The most important changes that are permanent and ever lasting and have the most impact on all outdoors people is the transfer of land from public to private ownership. The wealthy have for ever purchased and controlled the the best and most beautiful parcels of property in the world and history shows us that this practice will not stop. Only those lands that are publicly controlled and managed by conservation minded people remain off limits to the moneyed. I am not saying that the rich are bad people or anything like that, it's just one of the things people with money do with their money; heck, I'd probably buy up a little retread myself if I had the dough. *Current Utah leadership has stated loud and clear that economic development of public land is top of the list for public land management. The sale of public land into the hands of private individuals is and will always be a huge part of their management plan. This removal of the most beautiful and scenic lands from the public domain will be the most devastating loss for the general public and the outdoor enthusiast of all ilks!*


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

High Desert Elk brings up a REALLY good point there - one that has bugged me for decades. Our neighboring states that have the same federal lands hand of cards as Utah, bring in several times every year from their school trust lands. New Mexico is one of them. But NM is not unique. Colorado. Wyoming. Nevada. Arizona - ALL bring in several times more in revenue from their trust lands than Utah does. Why? Because Utah decides to sell for a one time payment, instead of lease, or long term payments and royalties. With directional drilling, you can drop pads on the school trust sections and avoid much of the crap the federal land managers or even the tribes make you do, and still get the good. And consolidation of surface facilities is MUCH kinder to the habitats.


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Very enlightening, guys. Thank you. I had a feeling this is what they were up to. I don't trust any politician any further than I can smell him/her. They could talk until they're blue in the face about how recreational opportunities will be protected and preserved, but I just don't believe them. It's a sad proposition that a pricetag can be placed on our natural resources. Once they're gone, they'll be gone forever.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Anytime you expose federal minerals you need to have a federal permit (APD) to drill those minerals. However, if the surface is on the state, they are the ones to decide on surface reclamation during and after production of the well. Prime example, the Jicarilla Apache in NM do not own the minerals. They are BLM or federal. The APD is issued by the BLM, but the tribe dictates what you do on the surface. Same same with USFS land and federal minerals.

If the brain trust of government for the state of UT had any understanding at all, they would lease, lease, lease, and keep the ownership "public" rather than give it away for the current appraised value. That, gentlemen, is how you keep a positive revenue stream and operate the state "corporation" in the black! 

There is nothing worse than selling something on ebay for less than what you paid for it.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

utahgolf said:


> What Ivory is doing should be illegal.


If you are referring to Ivory's attempts to force the transfer of Federal land to the State of Utah, it is already illegal. Both the State Constitution and the enabling act that created the State of Utah specify that Utah forever gives up any claim to the land in question.

Incidentally, it is an interesting fact that the State of Utah received a huge grant of Federal land when the State was created. Part of the grand bargain for statehood was that Utah gave up any claim to the rest of that land, as discussed above.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

massmanute said:


> If you are referring to Ivory's attempts to force the transfer of Federal land to the State of Utah, it is already illegal. Both the State Constitution and the enabling act that created the State of Utah specify that Utah forever gives up any claim to the land in question.
> 
> Incidentally, it is an interesting fact that the State of Utah received a huge grant of Federal land when the State was created. Part of the grand bargain for statehood was that Utah gave up any claim to the rest of that land, as discussed above.


I'm talking about Ivory creating a non profit lands group and accepting tens of thousands of dollars from special interest groups for himself and his wife. I wonder what he is promising these special interests. It's a nice little money making scheme and some supplemental income for him and his wife.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I wonder what his bishop thinks about his activities? 

He is a BYU grad and RM. 

Let's just see if he gets excommunicated for being such a snake to the good citizens of Utah.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> I wonder what his bishop thinks about his activities?
> 
> He is a BYU grad and RM.
> 
> Let's just see if he gets excommunicated for being such a snake to the good citizens of Utah.


Won't happen-> that's all business and as we know business practices in the state are exempt from moral accountability. Lot's of stuff is exempt as long as you toe the line and hit church every Sunday with a smile on your face. Look at our lovely Utah County commissioner Greg Graves, we passed him on his way to church last Sunday and this shows up:

http://fortyfivepolitics.com/utah-c...sing-ashley-madison-but-denies-having-affair/

Not to mention a truck load of other 'issues'

http://www.sltrib.com/57833526

yet still in the good graces. As long as he doesn't say anything sinful...cough cough ordain women cough cough cough cough gay marriage cough cough he will be just fine.

oh and selling public land is bad


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Selling public lands is lame. Using the public land issue as an opportunity to mormon bash is also lame.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> High Desert Elk brings up a REALLY good point there - one that has bugged me for decades. Our neighboring states that have the same federal lands hand of cards as Utah, bring in several times every year from their school trust lands. New Mexico is one of them. But NM is not unique. Colorado. Wyoming. Nevada. Arizona - ALL bring in several times more in revenue from their trust lands than Utah does. Why? Because Utah decides to sell for a one time payment, instead of lease, or long term payments and royalties. With directional drilling, you can drop pads on the school trust sections and avoid much of the crap the federal land managers or even the tribes make you do, and still get the good. And consolidation of surface facilities is MUCH kinder to the habitats.


Colorado leases most of the best state lands to outfitters so beware the leasing of lands bit. If a state can make money on it they will and that means locking sportsmen out.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> Selling public lands is lame. Using the public land issue as an opportunity to mormon bash is also lame.


Probably true--but when the majority of the state follows a certain guiding principal and you see it used in some really awesome ways but ignored in some other ways it can be frustrating.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Airborne said:


> Colorado leases most of the best state lands to outfitters so beware the leasing of lands bit. If a state can make money on it they will and that means locking sportsmen out.


I have never heard about Colorado leasing their lands to outfitters. Do you have a link or a publication that confirms this?

Colorado is a little bit unique in that just about all of the bottom land is private and it locks out hunters from the National Forest and BLM above it. These land owners learned a long time ago that they can lease access to their lands to outfitters and then the outfitters will police their property. Colorado is also a state that requires the hunter/fisherman to know where they are at all times, private property does not need to be posted.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Critter said:


> I have never heard about Colorado leasing their lands to outfitters. Do you have a link or a publication that confirms this?
> 
> Colorado is a little bit unique in that just about all of the bottom land is private and it locks out hunters from the National Forest and BLM above it. These land owners learned a long time ago that they can lease access to their lands to outfitters and then the outfitters will police their property. Colorado is also a state that requires the hunter/fisherman to know where they are at all times, private property does not need to be posted.


The state land board of Colorado runs 3 million acres, of which 550,000 are open to certain public recreation activities, certain times of the year. They put out a brochure to tell you what you can and can't hunt/do and when you can step foot on any of these lands. You generally can't camp or ride ATVs on them.

So running the numbers you *basically have some limited access to about 20% of the state lands in Colorado* for only certain activities and you need to research each plot of land and determine what activity you can do.

This is what happens when states control the land and can see money at the other end. They sell this to the public as a revenue source for schools and they are right--it is money in their coffers. They throw sportsmen a bone but that's all you get are heavily regulated scraps.

Here is the link you asked for: http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages/StateTrustLands.aspx

go look through the brochure and see all the 'opportunities' you have to roam the wild lands owned by Colorado and remember that this is less than 20% of what they own. Utah would be much worse.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Airborn, nothing there says that it is leased to "outfitters" It also says

*"**Parcels are open only from September 1 through the end of February, unless otherwise stated in the brochure."

*Which is during the hunting seasons.

I have roamed the wild lands in Colorado and have never had a problem with the trust lands, but the private is a whole different story.

It is also my assumption that the state school trust lands are the states to uses as they see fit, they can sell or lease them which ever suits their fancy.

I agree that Federal lands should stay Federal lands and if some of the states come into control of it then it will soon be sold to the highest bidder or whoever lines the elected officials pocket the best.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Critter said:


> Airborn, nothing there says that it is leased to "outfitters" It also says
> 
> *"**Parcels are open only from September 1 through the end of February, unless otherwise stated in the brochure."
> 
> ...


You are misinterpreting the wording, when it says 'parcels' it is referring to the parcels listed in the brochure, *not the remaining 2.45 MILLION ACRES*. This is straight from the FAQ on the state boards lands website:

_*What state trust land is available for me to hunt or fish on?* 
Most state trust lands are not open to the public. To enter these lands without written permission from the State Land Board is considered trespassing. CPW leases some state trust land and makes these lands available for wildlife related activities through the Public Access Program. For more information about the Public Access Program, please go to CPW's website at: www.cpw.state.co.us _

Here is that website: http://trustlands.state.co.us/SECTIONS/FIELDOPERATIONS/Pages/FAQs.aspx

The fact remains that you can only step foot on 20% of Colorado state lands with corresponding restrictions. Where is the other 80% of the lands and what happened to them? What motivation would Colorado have to keeping its citizenry out of 80% of the land that it holds? It's money brother! AND what entities are willing to pay that money? It's the outfitters for the best hunting grounds, it's the livestock industry for the best grazing grounds, and it's the energy extraction industry for the best mining areas.

Just a word of warning for guys hunting Colorado-> when you see state land on your map you had better make sure it's listed in the 'brochure' and it fits your usage, otherwise you can't step one foot on it.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Airborne said:


> Just a word of warning for guys hunting Colorado-> when you see state land on your map you had better make sure it's listed in the 'brochure' and it fits your usage, otherwise you can't step one foot on it.


FWIW - Same thing goes in Utah. State Trust Lands are NOT open to the public. They care closed to the public unless specifically noted. For the purposes of outdoor recreation by the general public, they are private lands, and unless specifically noted as open to the public, to hunt, fish, hike, bike, motor, or otherwise set foot on them is considered trespassing.

Now that said, some ARE open for outdoor activities. Some have even been consolidated into large tracts through land swaps in order to provide bigger, contiguous tracts of lands specifically for outdoor activities. But Utah is just like Colorado - unless stated by parcel, Trust Lands are closed.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Airborn, what I am trying to clarify is where you stated this in a post



Airborne said:


> Colorado leases most of the best state lands to outfitters so beware the leasing of lands bit. If a state can make money on it they will and that means locking sportsmen out.


I don't know of any state lands that are leased to *outfitters* unless that land is leased to ranchers and such and then they lease it to the outfitter.


----------



## Airborne (May 29, 2009)

Critter said:


> Airborn, what I am trying to clarify is where you stated this in a post
> 
> I don't know of any state lands that are leased to *outfitters* unless that land is leased to ranchers and such and then they lease it to the outfitter.


Dude--> You can't see the forest for the trees

Does it matter who 'officially' has control over the land? You can't step foot on it so what does it matter. If you want to bust my balls for semantics that's fine--I don't have official numbers of how many acres of state land is controlled directly by outfitters and I bet they don't either. All the state wants is the most money it can possibly get, outfitter or rancher or whatever they don't care what type of entity leases the land within the law.

Common sense says if I can lease state ground for hunting and make money on it it's going to happen. I have personal experience with several pieces of state land that are leased by an outfitter. I am not going to drop names but it happens and hundreds (maybe thousands) of hunters have lost their hunting right because they stepped on Colorado state ground that was controlled by outfitters--call the state land board and prove it to yourself, call Brad Frano at the Colorado division of wildlife and ask him. Please note that I have never lost my hunting rights but I know more than most regarding this.


----------



## Caddis-n-Cutts (Sep 28, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> And way back in the 70s before the Church bought it, you could hunt most any private land if you asked and promised not to tear up the place. After too many years of slob hunters everywhere, land owners from Idaho to Arizona got sick of it and locked gates and put up signs.


Look how bad is now compared to what it was 20-30 years ago. Now imagine what other types of changes will come in the next 20-30 years. I'm afraid of what it will be like for my kids and grandkids. It seems like middle class won't be able to afford to hunt/fish etc. and it will become the high fence rich man's game.

I don't know what it's like way up North, but Canada sounds mighty tempting, eh?


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Nearly all SITLA (State Trust) land can be leased by virtually anyone/any group/any organization. Outfits can lease land. 

One more point...did you know the DWR pays SITLA millions every year for the right for the general public to hunt/fish/recreate/trespass on SITLA land?


----------

