# State Trust Lands



## twinkielk15 (Jan 17, 2011)

I was out chasing chukars over the weekend and had an interesting thing happen. Most of the areas I hunt are BLM with the occasional square mile of state trust land. I've hunted them interchangeably but this trip I followed a road on BLM land that crossed onto trust land with no gate. I eventually came to what appeared to be a range fence but it was gated instead of having a cattle-guard. I checked my GPS and, sure enough, that fence was the boundary where it switched back to BLM. Anyone else seen this? I'm fairly new to this whole thing so maybe it happens all the time. I just wasn't sure if I was legal to park there and hop the fence or if it meant "KEEP OFF".


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Only for very special reasons would the BLM land be closed, and it would be clearly marked. Now SITLA(trust) ground, although being owned by the State, is not technically "public property". They can and do close property, erect fenses, etc. at their discretion. Did you know that the DWR actually has to pay SITLA for the right for you, a licensed Utah hunter to hunt? My guess is that the fence was erected by SITLA for cattle crazing reasons. If you're sure the other side of the fence is BLM you should be free to enter, hunt, fish, etc.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

The division has an agreement right now that all SITLA land is fair game to hunt. I read the agreement a couple years ago and there was nothing in it about limiting access of any kind. I personally have never seen any SITLA land that I couldn't hunt, but I am sure it exists in or near more populated areas or perhaps for oil and gas processing plants. BLM does lease lots of grazing permits and I am guessing the fence was to keep cows on BLM and off of SITLA or vice versa.

There are fences on just about every square mile in utah and the vast majority of them are on public land. If there isn't a sign that says no trespassing, you can hunt it assuming it is not cultivated or irrigated land.


----------



## twinkielk15 (Jan 17, 2011)

Cool. Thanks for the info guys!


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

I may be wrong, lord knows it wouldn't be the first time, but $3,000,000(per year) sticks in my mind as the figure the DWR has to pay SITLA for the privilege for us to hunt on their property. So far SITLA has not made a general no hunting statement, but I wonder what would happen if the DWR didn't make that payed for agreement


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

And people wonder why we don't trust the state legislature with federal land.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

redleg said:


> And people wonder why we don't trust the state legislature with federal land.


And well they shouldn't trust this groups of economic only minded nincompoops. Keep in mind that SITLA was conceived in the 1990's to better regulate the state owned school trust property. Prior to this time the state simply sold off vast tracks...here again, only the nice stuff would sell... of their holdings to cover cost of maintaining and administrating the property. SITLA still uses sales as their primary tool to raise needed money. Other methods including leasing for both personal and economic reasons are also used. Although SITLA has for the most part done a much better job of keeping track of the funds that have been raised, and maximizing this income, their primary goal is still to raise the most number of dollars possible from the utilization of the property. Economic maximization is and always will be their priority and will take precedent over aesthetic and recreational values every time.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Not ALL SITLA lands are open for hunting, or public access. Most are, but not all. Be sure to check the area you intend to hunt ahead of time just to make sure.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Not ALL SITLA lands are open for hunting, or public access. Most are, but not all. Be sure to check the area you intend to hunt ahead of time just to make sure.


Good point, same goes for the state lands in Wyoming.

Remember state lands will have different rules than BLM or FS land, i.e. overnight camping, campfires and vehicle use.

.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> Good point, same goes for the state lands in Wyoming.
> 
> Remember state lands will have different rules than BLM or FS land, i.e. overnight camping, campfires and vehicle use.
> 
> .


On the other hand they don't have Rangers that I know of, so I don't know who does their law enforcement. The local Sheriff maybe?


----------



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

bowgy said:


> On the other hand they don't have Rangers that I know of, so I don't know who does their law enforcement. The local Sheriff maybe?


That's a good question, who does enforce SITLA land laws?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

My guess would be Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands

http://ffsl.utah.gov/

Or

Trust Lands Administration

http://trustlands.utah.gov/


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

bowgy said:


> On the other hand they don't have Rangers that I know of, so I don't know who does their law enforcement. The local Sheriff maybe?


In WY it's the Game and Fish, the County Sheriff and the State Police. The plant I worked out of for 13 years up on the Bear River Divide above Evanston was on a state school section and the Game and Fish policed it during the hunting season. The gas company I worked for leased it. If people were starting fires, camping, cutting firewood, or being naughty with 4-wheelers the boss called the sheriff though.

WY had a State Forester, 400 miles away in Cheyenne, that dealt with tree and vegetation issues. By rule, if we put a shovel in the ground we had to get with him.

We had a good-sized gas gathering system south of Vernal back in the 80s. Most was BLM, some Res, and a little SITLA. Outside of permitting and pre-job meetings I don't remember much involvement from the state when we laid ruin to the desert out there

.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> That's a good question, who does enforce SITLA land laws?


All laws within the State of Utah can be enforced by ANY law enforcement officer. A State Park Ranger can give you a speeding ticket. A Wild Life Conservation Officer can ticket you for trespass, or not having enough life jackets on board. A city cop can ticket you for being over your limit on fish, or your boat registration being expired. A BLM cop can ticket you for drunk driving, or knocking off the local 7-11.

Going on SITLA lands without permission is trespassing, and can be enforced by any city cop, county sheriff/deputy, state cop, highway patrolman, or federal law enforcement cop in the state. And when the county dispatch gets a call, they'll usually call the LEO that is closest - be it BLM, State Parks, DWR, City Cop, UHP, or deputy. On on that matter, LEO certification is given by the State of Utah, so a city cop from any town, say Richfield, can give you a ticket in Box Elder County, or anywhere in the state if he wants to.

So to your question - who enforces things on SITLA lands - any LEO in the State.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> All laws within the State of Utah can be enforced by ANY law enforcement officer. A State Park Ranger can give you a speeding ticket. A Wild Life Conservation Officer can ticket you for trespass, or not having enough life jackets on board. A city cop can ticket you for being over your limit on fish, or your boat registration being expired. A BLM cop can ticket you for drunk driving, or knocking off the local 7-11.
> 
> Going on SITLA lands without permission is trespassing, and can be enforced by any city cop, county sheriff/deputy, state cop, highway patrolman, or federal law enforcement cop in the state. And when the county dispatch gets a call, they'll usually call the LEO that is closest - be it BLM, State Parks, DWR, City Cop, UHP, or deputy. On on that matter, LEO certification is given by the State of Utah, so a city cop from any town, say Richfield, can give you a ticket in Box Elder County, or anywhere in the state if he wants to.
> 
> So to your question - who enforces things on SITLA lands - any LEO in the State.


 I was just wondering since the State Lands have no official LEO that I know of whereas the BLM and Forest have rangers.
That is true since they all go to the same POST Utah has made that law. I guess the better word would be, who patrols it or who files the complaint?

I would think that there would have to be a complaint filed and then the State Lands would file with the courts and if there was a judgment I would think it would be issued by the local sheriff.

I'm sure for fish and game violations the DWR would be right there if the person was caught.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

SITLA lands are essentially private property. A trespass issue would be ticketed through the county, as any ticket is processed in the county of the offense. Game violations would obviously be referred to DWR for further investigation. But trespass is really what you're dealing with on SITLA lands, and trespass is trespass.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Trust lands are parcels of land managed by the Trust Lands Administration for the exclusive benefit of state institutions or beneficiaries, as designated by Congress. Because these lands are held in trust, they differ greatly from public lands, and are more akin to private lands. Only about 6% of the state's acreage is set aside as trust lands to generate revenue for beneficiaries, primarily public schools. View the Trust Lands surface and mineral estate map.
At the time of statehood, Congress granted parcels of land to Utah from which revenue could be generated to support state institutions, including public schools, hospitals, teaching colleges, and universities.

I was just thinking out loud since State Land doesn't have any LEO that I know of whereas BLM and USFS have rangers.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

From their web site:

*Trust lands are generally open to the public for responsible recreational activities including hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use.*
*However, public access to trust lands can be withdrawn at any time to allow SITLA to meet its legislative mandate to generate revenue to support trust land beneficiaries.*
*Unlike public lands, these lands are held in trust to directly support specific state institutions as designated by the U.S. Congress. As such, recreational and other public access may be restricted, routes altered or terminated, and other infrastructure removed to accommodate future development.*
*As you recreate on trust lands, please be respectful and help to protect resources for beneficiaries.*

So it looks like it is Federal land held in trust by the state. So to answer my own question it would probably be the LEO of which it is surrounded. Such as BLM or USFS or DWR when it comes to wildlife issues.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Be watchful... you could earn some money.

*Report Trespass, Misuse and Unauthorized Use*

This form allows for anonymous reports but be aware there is a $500 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of individuals trespassing/damaging SITLA lands. If you wish to leave an anonymous report please include a detailed description of the incident and a description of where the incident is occurring, date and time of the incident(s), information regarding the suspects & vehicles involved, a narrative of the incident, witness information - name, address, phone number.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

SITLA lands are not federal. They were granted to the State for the above mentioned purposes. That grant was authorized by Congress. But the lands do not belong to the Government of the United States. 

Where it gets dicey for the recreating public, is that at anytime, they can sell or lease part or all of any parcel of land. And it takes a while for that transaction to catch up with the maps. If you are working off of a printed 7.5 minute quad, that data could be 10, 15, or even more years old, and what shows as SITLA or state lands, may be developed. 

For example, back in the early 90s, I found this section of land north of Manti. It was state lands. One section was all. But it was surrounded by farms. The deer would stay on the state land during the day, and at night, would go down and feed in the fields. Well, setting up in the little draw that led from the fields to the hill was the perfect place to hunt. So for many years, I hunted there and had quite a bit of success. Well, things came up and I went 6-7 years without hunting the spot. One year I finally broke down and headed back there the Monday after the opener, to see if I could find anything. The whole section of land had been subdivided into 20 acre lots and houses were being built, driveways graded out, scrub oak cleared, and my favorite little hunting spot wasn't any more. But that's the nature of those lands. And that can happen any time, without public notice, and without fanfare. You'll show up one day and it can be gated and locked, and marked private property. And that's how that goes.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> SITLA lands are not federal. They were granted to the State for the above mentioned purposes. That grant was authorized by Congress. But the lands do not belong to the Government of the United States.
> 
> Where it gets dicey for the recreating public, is that at anytime, they can sell or lease part or all of any parcel of land. And it takes a while for that transaction to catch up with the maps. If you are working off of a printed 7.5 minute quad, that data could be 10, 15, or even more years old, and what shows as SITLA or state lands, may be developed.
> 
> For example, back in the early 90s, I found this section of land north of Manti. It was state lands. One section was all. But it was surrounded by farms. The deer would stay on the state land during the day, and at night, would go down and feed in the fields. Well, setting up in the little draw that led from the fields to the hill was the perfect place to hunt. So for many years, I hunted there and had quite a bit of success. Well, things came up and I went 6-7 years without hunting the spot. One year I finally broke down and headed back there the Monday after the opener, to see if I could find anything. The whole section of land had been subdivided into 20 acre lots and houses were being built, driveways graded out, scrub oak cleared, and my favorite little hunting spot wasn't any more. But that's the nature of those lands. And that can happen any time, without public notice, and without fanfare. You'll show up one day and it can be gated and locked, and marked private property. And that's how that goes.


Yes, they were granted to the state for the schools by the federal government to be held in trust by the state. They are mandated to make money off the land for the schools.

They can be sold for development, traded for land that they feel is more profitable and traded with other federal agencies.

I have a neighbor that traded land in the valley for mountain land that was SITLA land. The Leigh Hill area in Cedar City where the communication towers are and the homes surrounding the towers was BLM but was traded or transferred to SITLA. SITLA kept the Communications sites for their annual leases and sold the surrounding area to be developed into housing.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

This is why some of the SITLA land is land locked.

*Trust land parcels were allocated by apportioning the state into townships, each six by six miles, and dividing each township ****into 36 square-mile sections. Utah was given sections 2, 16, 32, and 36 in each township for public schools, resulting in a checkerboard of land ownership. All other designated state institutions were granted fixed amounts of acreage selected by the state from the remaining public domain.*


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

This has been an interesting and educational, at least for me, thread.

Here is some interesting info, sounds like the SITLA is accomplishing something.

Below are 2015-2016 distributions by school district. Find out what your individual school received and learn more about the School Land Trust.


Alpine $4,957,407 
Beaver $199,513 
Box Elder $838,345 
Cache $1,181,184 
Canyons $2,313,186 
Carbon $322,246 
Daggett $111,339 
Davis $4,642,558 
Duchesne $439,592 
Emery $249,776 
Garfield $160,748 
Grand $195,571 
Granite $4,545,383 
Iron $679,014 
Jordan $3,503,856 
Juab $252,469 
Kane $178,291 
Logan $491,826 
Millard $287,292 
Morgan $281,642 
Murray $521,393


Nebo $2,162,592 
North Sanpete $256,609 
North Summit $165,873 
Ogden $911,341 
Park City $411,274 
Piute $119,749 
Provo $1,190,579 
Rich $131,313 
Salt Lake City $1,651,487 
San Juan $298,462 
Sevier $402,733 
South Sanpete $306,215 
South Summit $199,119 
Tintic $116,924 
Tooele $1,011,407 
Uintah $619,750 
Wasatch $491,432 
Washington $1,881,645 
Wayne $131,576 
Weber $2,149,057


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

That looks pretty good Bowgy. Until you check those numbers against all of Utah's neighboring states. Utah ranks dead last among rocky mountains states, in the amount of revenue they generate from their SITLA lands. Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico ALL take in several times more than Utah does. We are talking 8-10 times what Utah does. It's crazy.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

My home sits less than 200 yards from a SITLA parcel. I checked with our local police department a year ago and was told shooting and hunting are permitted on the property. One of the cops even went so far as to say he had been shooting there just a few days before I stopped in their office. During dove season I heard shooting there almost every day so I guess there were a few doves there. I know there's bunnies because they come into our yard almost every night. It is heavily used on weekends so I would have to be careful not to shoot a 4 wheeler or mountain biker on a weekend.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> That looks pretty good Bowgy. Until you check those numbers against all of Utah's neighboring states. Utah ranks dead last among rocky mountains states, in the amount of revenue they generate from their SITLA lands. Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico ALL take in several times more than Utah does. We are talking 8-10 times what Utah does. It's crazy.


It would be interesting to find out where the differences are and why. If you have some links that show what you say that would be good information.

I don't have the time right now to research that but it would be an interesting study. I'm sure some of the impact is due to the amount of National Parks and Monuments that Utah has that limits mining and oil exploration. But what all the different aspects are would be interesting to know.

I know that this thread has been hijacked but to the OP, there are range fences and gates on many public lands, so if you know that it is public and there are no "No Trespassing" signs and the gate is not locked just follow the range rules and if it's closed, close it behind you and if it is open, leave it open.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

One of the biggest reasons is that the Legislature has borrowed against the endowment fund on multiple occasions, just like Congress has tapped into social security funds. 

The way the SITLA deal works, is money earned directly from the lands goes into a fund. Only interest on that fund can then be distributed. When that fund gets robbed by the legislature, then it reduces the principle that is earning the interest, so less revenue is generated. The second thing that Utah has done that has negatively impacted, is that Utah sells the land for mineral development, so they get a one time check, at the market value (usually much smaller) at the time of the sale. Other states will lease the lands for mineral development/access, so there are on-going payments that can be escalated and increased to account for inflation. The other thing that SITLA has failed on is selling lands pre-development. For example, the little patch of land north of Manti that I used to hunt - they sold the whole section at undeveloped land prices to a private developer. Who then turned it around and broke it up into 300, 20 acre lots, bladed a few roads to get to them, and then sold the land for 10 times what they had paid for it. Had SITLA served as the developer, they could have gotten 10 times the money for the same piece of land. 

So yea. It is a variety of reasons that all combine to a whole lot less money for the Trust.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

One problem some are having here is that they don't understand that "government owned" does not mean that it is "public ground". I am defining public ground in terms of the way the property is managed. The BLM and forest service for example have a much more wide open, "public welcome" policy than does for example the National Wide Life Preserves. Forest Service property is somewhere in the middle. There is also National Parks, Monuments, Recreational Property, Historical Sights, and others. It must be understood that there are many types of property designations within the general term "public property". All of these different property types must be managed differently to reflect not only personal desires by interest groups with different agendas but they must be managed for biological, historical, aesthetically, and economic reasons as well. It is my only hope that the agencies that make these decisions are not overly influenced by special interest groups.
SITLA is directed by a set of very simple laws. Make as much money as they can by any legal means possible. Working under this directive I think they have done a fair job. They sell a little to much property in my opinion, but here again, I am a special interest group. 
The trouble with transferring Federally owned ground to Utah at this time is that our legislators seem to be a special interest group unto their own, with only one objective as their guide. And like the SITLA rules set up by the state legislature, the laws that would be set up to manage these newly acquired lands would be managed for economic development only!


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> One of the biggest reasons is that the Legislature has borrowed against the endowment fund on multiple occasions, just like Congress has tapped into social security funds.
> 
> The way the SITLA deal works, is money earned directly from the lands goes into a fund. Only interest on that fund can then be distributed. When that fund gets robbed by the legislature, then it reduces the principle that is earning the interest, so less revenue is generated. The second thing that Utah has done that has negatively impacted, is that Utah sells the land for mineral development, so they get a one time check, at the market value (usually much smaller) at the time of the sale. Other states will lease the lands for mineral development/access, so there are on-going payments that can be escalated and increased to account for inflation. The other thing that SITLA has failed on is selling lands pre-development. For example, the little patch of land north of Manti that I used to hunt - they sold the whole section at undeveloped land prices to a private developer. Who then turned it around and broke it up into 300, 20 acre lots, bladed a few roads to get to them, and then sold the land for 10 times what they had paid for it. Had SITLA served as the developer, they could have gotten 10 times the money for the same piece of land.
> 
> So yea. It is a variety of reasons that all combine to a whole lot less money for the Trust.


Yup, that's what they did in Cedar where the communications sites are, they kept them but sold the surrounding area that was developed into housing. I don't remember how they got it from the BLM but I think it was a land trade.


----------

