# New WMA purchased from SITLA



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

Happy to see the area remain public and become a new WMA in the state






DWR acquires valuable wildlife property in public auction with funding from partners


The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources was named as the winning bid Tuesday during a public auction for the Cinnamon Creek property in Cache and Weber counties, which will become an invaluable wildlife management area.




wildlife.utah.gov


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

I know the area well, I would have been devastated if it had been sold to private interests. I'll be watching closely to see if any public access is restricted or possibly even opened (there's gotta be a right of way to the mines in Cinnamon Creek through the church camp above porcupine). Regardless, thanks to the state and various sportsmen and conservation groups for making this happen, a timeless gift to our children and grandchildren.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Kevin D said:


> I know the area well, I would have been devastated if it had been sold to private interests. I'll be watching closely to see if any public access is restricted or possibly even opened (there's gotta be a right of way to the mines in Cinnamon Creek through the church camp above porcupine). Regardless, thanks to the state and various sportsmen and conservation groups for making this happen, a timeless gift to our children and grandchildren.


I agree.
As for the right of way through the church camp, I think this would have been brought up years ago when they closed it. Hard to imagine the traffic it would get from the Cache valley side now with all the ATV/UTV traffic.


----------



## caddis8 (Sep 10, 2007)

The plan I saw was to turn it into a WMA, so there is likely a plan for access. Glad it ended up in public hands. Public access on the south side of Cache Valley isn't easy.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

There is / was already access from the east. We are talking about from the west. Which used to exist many years ago.


----------



## cowboy (Oct 12, 2021)

Happy to see this happen as well. Kudos to the SFW, MDF, RMEF and others for stepping up and getting this done.


----------



## Gordon (Sep 11, 2007)

middlefork said:


> I agree.
> As for the right of way through the church camp, I think this would have been brought up years ago when they closed it. Hard to imagine the traffic it would get from the Cache valley side now with all the ATV/UTV traffic.


Try fighting the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric for access in Utah..........


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Happy to see the area remain public and become a new WMA in the state
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank goodness. Actually was going to come rant on here about the state selling public land and that was one of them! 

I saw that up for sale and was upset. Then on the extended this year I learned the place I shot my first archery deer (first two actually) which had state access leading to Forest service was sold by the state. They don't care about us and honestly the last few years I have become team "state shouldn't get ahold of federal lands EVER".


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Anyone that has paid attention for the last 12+ years knows my position on public lands and what the state would do.

That said, don’t confuse SITLA land with other public lands. SITLA has a constitutional and statutory mandate to maximize profits. This is why you see those lands managed the way they are, including being sold. They have to, it’s the law.

Which should also scare people wanting state control, because it’s very likely lands would become SITLA lands, and therefore carry a legal mandate to maximize profits.

Good work by all involved. Any preserved public land in that area is a win.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

It is a great addition to protect wildlife and access. Well done to the UDWR and those who helped- which is all of us!

As for SITLA---


Vanilla said:


> SITLA has a constitutional and statutory mandate to maximize profits. This is why you see those lands managed the way they are, including being sold. They have to, it’s the law.


This is true and at the same time there should be much more to it. In my opinion, SITLA land managers are the problem. They seem able to do as they wish with little or no oversite from outside of their Department. The people who work with land management within SITLA are incentivized to sell SITLA lands thru bonuses/commissions. There is no incentive for the people working there to keep the lands. Yet, the public and schools benefit long-term by holding onto the land as it appreciates in value and is an excellent means to stave off the effects of inflation. SITLA and its sister Admin of funds have over $2 billion invested which returns significant money to its beneficiaries. Selling land today, especially important, revenue producing properties, is a short term gain which monetarily benefits the current SITLA Administrators. To sell properties such as Cinnamon Cr or Tabby is criminally short-sighted in relation to the long term needs of their beneficiaries. What was Cinn Cr worth 10 years ago? $2-5 million? Today $20 million. What is its worth in 50 years or 100 years?????? SITLA managers selling yearly for that $$$$bonus$$$$$...... Many States sold off most of their Trust Lands and are regretting it today. Utah could be in the same boat for our posterity with the short-sighted management of SITLA lands. Just one man's opinion based on my understanding.

This is from 2006 and more stories have come out since. Imagine the bonuses today as land prices have increased.


https://le.utah.gov/audit/Compensation_Report.pdf


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Access to the property from the Ant Flat road is a fairly recent development. It wasn't until a public right of way was purchased in the early 1980's from private landowners that you come come in from the east. Before that the only public access was up past porcupine to where the church camp is now (they purchased the property in the mid 70's) and on up to mineral point, so this route had been the historical public right of way to the newly purchased WMA. Looking back now, the public access route from the east happened about the same time as the church put up the gate on the west entrance, so I'm guessing now where a good portion of the money for the purchase of the access route from Ant Flat road probably came from. 

I'm no attorney of course, but there still might be some legal right of way through the church camp to the property. Do I think it'll ever get challenged? Gordon makes a good point....


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Packout- spot on!

Kevin/Gordon- prescriptive easements and rights of way are tricky. It can become pretty technical. But the law is pretty well established. If someone thinks that right of way exists, challenge it. Otherwise it seems disingenuous to criticize the landowner on a hypothetical. But that’s just one man’s opinion.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I bought my first 4 wheel drive in 1976. One of the first "wheeling trips" was following a older friend on the road through the church camp and to Mineral Point. From there we continued on to the Ant Flat road. We continued that tradition for many years from both directions. I don't know which access point was closed first but I believe it coincided with a land action by a previous DWR employee in the same area.

I don't know if the access was legal or not just that there was no indication to not use the road before.

With the establishment of the Shoshone Trail system there were many such routes in the area that were closed by private land owners afraid of prescriptive easements. It was a bigger battle than many people wanted to pursue.


----------



## Hill Hunter (Dec 1, 2017)

Vanilla said:


> That said, don’t confuse SITLA land with other public lands. SITLA has a constitutional and statutory mandate to maximize profits.


Just because we have some bad law on the books, doesn't mean that is the way it should be. SITLA acts like it is public land when that fits their interests, and treats it as private the rest of the time. But regardless of current statute, it still is land held by a public agency in trust to the people of Utah. We should not be trading our public lands away with the justification that developers with political influence got it written into law. We should change the law to restrict selling public land to private interests. 

The education argument is disingenuous as well. SITLA funds only a very small portion of the overall education budget, and selling most parcels is a short sighted approach to long term management. We could probably fund a few less lobbyists and make up the difference.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hill Hunter, you may need to do a bit more research on what SITLA lands are in Utah and across the country. I don’t mean that as an attempt to be rude. It just seems like you’re completely misunderstanding what the lands are, where they came from, and the ability to change “a bad law on the books.”


----------



## Gordon (Sep 11, 2007)

> Kevin/Gordon- prescriptive easements and rights of way are tricky. It can become pretty technical. But the law is pretty well established. If someone thinks that right of way exists, challenge it. Otherwise it seems disingenuous to criticize the landowner on a hypothetical. But that’s just one man’s opinion.


Aren't you an attorney? 
LD$ inc swings a pretty big stick. You don't just "challenge" that. The stream access guys leaned that the hard way.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Gordon said:


> Aren't you an attorney?


Yes, at least I play one on the internet, so I understand how it actually works in the court system. 



Gordon said:


> The stream access guys leaned that the hard way.


That's my fight, you don't need to tell me.

All that said, if you feel there is an established property right on that property that is being violated, challenge it. Don't just take shots at the system or the landowner. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.


----------

