# Federal Vs. State land



## sherlock (Apr 26, 2012)

I recently read that a poll indicated about 85% of Utahns support a state takeover of Federal lands in Utah. Here's just one reason that is a terrible idea if you are a hunter or fisherman: this year the Utah Division of Wildlife Res. will pay $600,000 to the State organization that manages the state trust lands (SITLA) to allow hunters and fishermen to "trespass" on those state lands. All of that money comes from the sale of hunting, fishing and trapping licenses. Incidentally, no other outdoor group (birdwatchers, ATV riders, campers, rock climbers, hikers, etc.) pays anything. 
If the State took over and charged at the same rate, we would pay about $5.6 million for the privilege. That would mean an 18% increase in license costs.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

True, and not true. SITLA lands while owned by a public entity, are not publicly accessible lands. They really are more ore less private lands, held by SITLA for the sole purpose of generating revenue for the school trust. Unless a specific parcel is designated for public access for whatever reason, it is not open to the public. DWR has negotiated for hunter access on several parcels, and essentially pays an access lease payment to SITLA for that use. These lands can be closed to other uses, at the discretion of SITLA. Most are not open to camping, rock climbing, or other kinds of uses unless specifically negotiated. 

But you bring up the overall fear of some people in the state - that is, turning Federal lands in Utah over to the State of Utah will essentially privatize the lands and close them off to general public uses. And the fear is also that if Federal Lands are turned over to the State, they will then be turned around and sold for private development - not a far reach considering the professions of the biggest legislative proponents of the bill. 

An 18% increase is the least of our worries. 18% would be a bargain compared to what we'll pay for trespass fees to private land owners. As a hunting community, the issue isn't increase in hunting fees - but a total loss in public land hunting opportunities all together.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

You are wrong about ATV riders paying nothing. We pay taxes on them every year. What the state does with the money I dont know but I do pay. That license fee is not for riding it on the road. The state taking over federal land would be the biggest mistake. We would lose access to everything.


----------

