# Opposition to Public Land Transfer



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

I know there has been significant opposition to the Public Land Transfer mentioned on this site, but I haven't seen a thread laying out exactly what the land transfer could mean and why I oppose it. I thought I start outlining why it is not good for people who enjoy the outdoors, especially in the West. 

First thing is, it has to be established that this is not just a one state issue. If Federal Land is transferred to the State of Utah, it will just be the first of all the other States to transfer property. 

My first reason I am opposed to the transfer is the fact that if property were to transfer, it would be under the management of the State Land Trust of each state. I do not have any problem with the State Land Trust, but the State Land Trust's only responsibility is to maximize returns for the State's Education system, they have no responsibility to manage multi-use access. State Land Trust land is not public land in the way most of us define it.

What does that matter? In both Colorado and New Mexico, it is illegal to hike on State Land Trust Lands. In Wyoming, it is illegal to camp on State Land Trust Lands. If the land transfer goes through, nearly 2/3 of each of those states are now restricted from public access. And in other states, while all there might not be a sweeping ban on these types of activities, each area has different regulations. 

This is strike one against the Federal Land public land transfer.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

While I could not be any more against the transfer of lands to state control, I do not believe you are correct that the land has to go into SITLA.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Unless specifically designated differently, I am confident that it will be transferred to the SITLA. And until it is designated that the transfer would go to some other agency, the default manager would be the SITLA. Everything I have found suggests that it would be the SITLA managing the land. The American Lands Council just says "state" but does not designate what organization.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

What is it that you've found that leads you to believe this? Again, I think you're wrong.

Only reason why I bring it up is if people are going to frame the argument, it needs to be factual. If I'm missing something and I am wrong, the I'll join the march on this. But I don't think this is correct.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

While the majority of information that I can find is extremely vague, stating "Management by State". However, I did find this from a Congressional Research Service report:

"By contrast, numerous bills proposed to transfer particular federal parcels or groups of parcels to individuals or other governmental entities-for instance, local governments-for public purposes. Other disposal bills have been broader. Some proposals sought to reauthorize expired disposal authorities or establish new ones, such as to require BLM and FS to offer for competitive sale a certain percentage of their lands annually for each of several years. Other bills would have accelerated currently authorized land sales, such as BLM lands identified as candidates for disposal under Section 203 of FLPMA.* Other measures would have allowed western states to select from the unappropriated federal lands a percentage of the federal land acreage in the state, which could then be leased or sold to generate state funds for education.* Still other proposals sought to limit federal land ownership or acquisition, for example by prohibiting or restricting acquisition in states with a certain percentage of federal land ownership or by linking acquisition to comparable disposal."

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44267.pdf

On top of that, the State Land Trust Owns about 3.3 Million acres in the state, by far and away the leading state land manager in the state. Each proposal can be different on who takes control, based on who introduces the bill, but most common cry I hear is that the "State" can do better. By citing the quality of the state's current management of their lands, as well suggesting that the state can manage it better, I believe it is very reasonable to assume that the largest land manager in the state would be the one that would take control of the lands. Unless you can provide me with a site clearly outlining this different


----------



## jsumm_2000 (Sep 18, 2008)

:neutralo not believe the State has your interests as a hunter. State trust lands hold auctions to sell off public land in the name of "schools". I have been in their list to get descriptions of land for sale. Big chunks are in the premium deer units in the state. The buyers are rich out od state people who fence those areas off, either tree hugers or sportsman. The state is as corrupt as the federal government. Public use is sacrificed for the "good" of your children or "schools".


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Make no mistake, I believe if the state gains control it is a major loss for sportsmen in Utah. They will, undoubtedly, sell and lease off as much as they can get value for, as they don't care about us. 

But even reading your link, and seeing your explanation, I don't agree it will automatically go to SITLA. Go read the relevant Utah bills that have been passed. 

Your theory on SITLA is a real stretch.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

So vanilla, what organization do you think would control management at the state level.

This isn't just my theory, as there are many prominent individuals in the hunting community who believe similarly.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

the Utah state division of natural resources could be the primary land holder and most likely would be and under that various partitioning to the dept of state lands, forestry and fire control, wildlife resources and potentially even a new dept created for such purpose. personally, I agree with vanilla - in that I don't think sitla would be chosen to administer lands in the exceptionally remote possibility that federal lands are transferred to the state.
why not submit this as a question to governor Herbert on the ask the gov thingey he holds most every Friday or whatever day he does it. get an answer from the top?


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

I have not seen any thing that would indicate that it would be placed under the FFSL in the Division of Natural resources, as everything is extremely vague on who will manage it, other than the "state". But the American Land Council President, Ken Ivory, who is also a state representative, repeatedly cites the need for additional funding in the State education fund as a reason for the transfer. 

So I will concede that maybe it wouldn't be transferred to the State Land Trust, but at the same time, there is nothing that guarantees that it won't be either.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Upon execution of federal land transfer, the recently signed Utah Public Lands Management Act (HB 276) would create a Division of Land Management. The director of the DNR would appoint the DLM director. The Act further provides for an 11 member Public Land Management Advisory Board consisting of the DLM director, Lieutenant Governor and 9 Governor appointees:

1 oil and gas representative
1 agricultural representative
1 outdoor recreation representative
1 environmental representative
3 county commissioner representatives
1 rural transportation representative
1 wildlife management representative
1 forest management representative

This follows the traditional state management model. Existing boards that are appointed by the Governor (there are a bunch of them, including the Wildlife Board) have a relatively focused purpose. Board members offer differing perspectives on that focal purpose. But this particular board is comprised of representatives with very different purposes. I suspect that's why there are 3 county reps - otherwise, little could be accomplished by anyone.

But the bottom line is that nothing is carved in stone. No promises; no guarantees. The state legislature fully intends to retain unfettered control. Even Noel concedes that there are lots of details left unaddressed and questions left unanswered by this legislation that they will wait until after the transfer to be addressed.

Ever sign a blink contract to be filled in later? Or have your wife say, "I want to tell you something, but first, you have to promise that you won't be mad!"?


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Finnegan said:


> Upon execution of federal land transfer, the recently signed Utah Public Lands Management Act (HB 276) would create a Division of Land Management. The director of the DNR would appoint the DLM director. The Act further provides for an 11 member Public Land Management Advisory Board consisting of the DLM director, Lieutenant Governor and 9 Governor appointees:
> 
> 1 oil and gas representative
> 1 agricultural representative
> ...


Thank you. I have been trying to find something outlining who would take control.


----------



## Mike Honcho (Oct 15, 2008)

(Looks like I was late to the game.)

"I think I may be able to help with the Pan/Pam dilemma."

During Utah's 2016 legislative session, Rep. Mike Noel introduced HB0276, the "Utah Public Land Management Act" (the "Act"). This bill was passed by the house and senate and was signed by the governor. The intent of HB0276 is to establish the mechanisms for managing lands "IF" the federal government is required to transfer public lands to the state (the legislation only becomes effective once the federal government transfers "at least 100,000" acres to Utah under the "Transfer of Public Lands Act"). This Act clarifies which agency will manage the lands transferred to Utah from the federal government.

Who will manage the land?

The Act creates the "Division of Land Management," which will operate within the Department of Natural Resources (Although the Act creates the Division of Land Management, the division will not be "staffed" until a minimum of 100,000 acres of land is transferred to Utah from the federal government and the legislature appropriates funds to operate the division). According to the Act the duties of the Division of Land Management are to, "[M]anage and administer all public land, as defined in Section 63L-8-102, consistent with the procedures, policies, and directives in Title 63L, Chapter 8, Utah Public Land Management Act."

What is "public land" under the Act?

According to the Act, ""Public land" means any land or land interest acquired by the state from the federal government pursuant to Section 63L-6-103, except: (a) areas subsequently designated as a protected wilderness area, as described in Title 63L, Chapter 7, Utah Wilderness Act; and (b) lands managed by the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration pursuant to Title 53C, School and Institutional Trust Lands Management Act."

Consequently, based on the language of the Act, "IF" federal public land is transferred to Utah from the federal government (1) it will be managed by the Division of Land Management and (2) it will be separate and distinct from lands managed by SITLA.

Link to the Utah Public Land Management Act: http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/HB0276.html.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Idratherbehunting said:


> Thank you. I have been trying to find something outlining who would take control.


I stated to go read the bills passed on the land transfer.

Not trying to be a jerk, but we have to form our stance on factual information. The quickest way to discredit our message is to state our opposition based upon something simply not in play.

It's easy to then turn around and say that the hunters are against this because it will become SITLA land. Well it won't be SITLA land, so I guess they'll be okay with it.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Vanilla said:


> I stated to go read the bills passed on the land transfer.
> 
> Not trying to be a jerk, but we have to form our stance on factual information. The quickest way to discredit our message is to state our opposition based upon something simply not in play.
> 
> It's easy to then turn around and say that the hunters are against this because it will become SITLA land. Well it won't be SITLA land, so I guess they'll be okay with it.


And I started reading bills that have been passed, but I started in the 2012 bills, not the ones from 2 weeks ago.

I already said I stand corrected, but I still contend that while Utah may have passed a bill that this will not be State Trust Land, there is no guarantee that it will not be State Trust Lands in other states. And if Utah wins, I do not believe the other states will be far behind.

There is still a risk they become State Trust Lands in other states. I relied on quite reputable individuals within the hunting community, but sources from prior to this legislative session.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

So does the new board of directors look like this? 
Mr. Bishop
Mr.Don Peay
Mr Lee
Mr Ivory
Mr Herbert and Sister
Any High Roller In Utah.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Old Fudd said:


> So does the new board of directors look like this?
> Mr. Bishop
> Mr.Don Peay
> Mr Lee
> ...


Sounds about right.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

So, we should at least agree that a board of Governor appointees (with only one wildlife representative) is not in our best interests, yes?

Another objection would be loss of access/opportunity - not just for hunters and anglers, but for everybody who enjoys the great outdoors. Nothing yet proposed by the state would prevent the logical consequence that under state control (without the multiple use mandate that governs federal management), access to these lands would be limited by lease agreements. That's the model for states without public lands, presuming that leases would be available.

Sure, I'm out of the factual realm, here. But it is not at all unreasonable to expect that within days of any transfer of lands to the state, various users will scramble for lease agreements.

Never mind the probability that lease holders might not want hunters on their lease. Let's assume that everybody loves hunters. But how many lease holders will welcome hunters for free? I'm guessing none.

So, Utah hunters will need to get used to the idea of paying for access, if any access is available at all. When the Sanpete extended elk hunt was in progress, I hunted public lands adjacent to private lands where "trespass fees" ranged from $500 to $1,000. That was the asking price when a public land option was available. Without that public land option, what might the asking price be?

Here's my big problem with that - lease fees in no way promote hunter recruitment. We're already seeing worrisome decreases in the number of hunters...hunters who buy permits, gas, groceries, tires and all those Pittman-Robertson things. Lease fees can only result in fewer hunters, which hurts the local convenience stores that depend on hunter business and hurts conservation funding.

Let's consider the unintended consequence to follow. If I'm Joe Smooth with control of a big hunk of land (by lease or by ownership) and I'm peddling trespass fees, the price I can ask is dictated by the number and quality of animals I have on my property. So what will I do to protect that value? Same as they do in states without public land - food plots, high fences, exotic species, age class and antler class restrictions.

How is any of this good for Utah hunters?


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

One thing that really has stood out to me as I have been reading the feasibility study that was completed by USU, WSU, and U of U is the in the discussion of the SITLA management, it repeatedly mentions how much of the SITLA lands are under-utilized because of the BLM not allowing them to develop on the surrounding lands. It says the BLM is not preventing them from getting access to their lands (which is illegal) but because they cannot develop on the surrounding lands, they do not develop/lease the SITLA lands. 

How does the transfer impact that? The only two ways I see that no longer being an issue is either the newly formed Division of Land Management allows the surrounding lands to be developed by the SITLA, or there is a large land swap, where the SITLA swaps land with the Division of Land Management so the SITLA can consolidate all holdings into a few locations. Any other way this issue is resolved? And what impacts could those options have?


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Old Fudd said:


> So does the new board of directors look like this?
> Mr. Bishop
> Mr.Don Peay
> Mr Lee
> ...


Maybe, but those are the Ted Cruzin Presidential Delegates (including Don) that will try to give Cruz the win from Utah, and guess who's a passionate proponent of public land transfer to the states, even running several ads in Nevada and Utah?


Here's the Legislative Analysis. Especially pay attention to page 286, which reads,

"*If the state takes over management of the federal land currently used for wildlife-associated activities
there is a chance a cost-benefit analysis can be performed to determine the best use of
the public land. This could include reallocating hunting and fishing areas for alternative uses including
oil and gas production, commercial development, or other types of recreation. This
however, would likely have a negative effect on wildlife-associated recreation as wildlife would
be displaced by human intervention. Likewise, hunters and anglers may be discouraged from
participating near private industry. Similarly, they may not desire an area that becomes developed
and crowded by other industrial pursuits.*"

How does this affect sportsmen, hunters, anglers, and the like? There ya go.

Here's some history as well on how public lands given to the states are managed the way they are today and how it might look in the future. Written by a student some years back, but very factually loaded and well put together....

Constitutionalized Public Land


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> 1 oil and gas representative
> 1 agricultural representative
> 1 outdoor recreation representative
> 1 environmental representative
> ...


Ouch...with 1 oil and gas rep, 1 agriculture rep, and possibly 3 rural county commissioners as reps, we are already stacking the cards against fish and wildlife recreation. To me, that looks like they are building up opposition to fight against conservation and environmental concerns the Feds use to oppose development, mining, and the overall destruction of public land.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

wyoming2utah said:


> Ouch...with 1 oil and gas rep, 1 agriculture rep, and possibly 3 rural county commissioners as reps, we are already stacking the cards against fish and wildlife recreation. To me, that looks like they are building up opposition to fight against conservation and environmental concerns the Feds use to oppose development, mining, and the overall destruction of public land.


Between those 5 and the rural transportation rep, there is a majority right there.


----------



## klbzdad (Apr 3, 2012)

Another article, but a good one concerning the "debate" where Mr. Ivory couldn't give a straight answer. He is solely responsible for my change in stance to oppose public land transfer from formerly supporting it. Couldn't look me in the eye and give ONE straight and honest answer.

Public Land Debate


----------



## stevo1 (Sep 13, 2007)

Mr Ivory can not give a straight answer, it is not in his DNA. Stealing the public lands is his cash cow.....stevo1 #stealthelands


----------

