# Utah state land sale tabby mountain



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Didn't anyone else see this 28,000 acres are up for sale

https://trustlands.utah.gov/land-sale-auctions/tabby-mountain/


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Not saying something couldn't change, but the reason that other offers are being entertained is because the State Division of Natural Resources is the one that has offered to buy it.

If the DNR buys it, isn't it likely that this piece would be much more secure than as SITLA land? Seems that if DNR is able to complete the purchase, it would be one more step removed from sale to a private entity that could lock all access.

Now, if another private buyer comes forward to buy this piece and the DNR is unable to complete the purchase none of what I just said would apply. At the outset, though, it seems that the DNR would be able to secure more sure long term access to this area which would be a positive.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Anytime public ground comes up for sale, game and fish agencies should always have first right of refusal before it goes to the general population for sale and purchase.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

If the DNR wanted it why wouldn’t they just lease it from the state. The state could retain ownership of the land and it would have a profit for the bean counters. From what I have read there is a large interest in it on the private side.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Hoopermat said:


> If the DNR wanted it why wouldn't they just lease it from the state. The state could retain ownership of the land and it would have a profit for the bean counters. From what I have read there is a large interest in it on the private side.


There are advantages to owning vs. leasing. SITLA has proven that they don't necessarily want to give the DNR any sweetheart lease deals and have held that gun to their head a few times in recent years.

Owning this piece seems to be a preferential outcome for sportsmen. At any given time, SITLA land can be sold to private interests, or the lease that allows us access could be lost.

I'm sure there is some private interest. I hope the DNR prevails in obtaining this piece. I agree with HDE that DNR should be given right of first refusal with SITLA lands especially. Adding them to the public trust seems to be a beneficial move.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I'm sure SITLA has to sell to the highest bidder as per their mandate. Hopefully that will be the DNR.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Minimum bid is at $41,000,000. That's to bad! I was thinking of placing an offer, but I'd have to work until I died to pay for it. I'd probably be about $39,999,000 short too.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

taxidermist said:


> Minimum bid is at $41,000,000. That's to bad! I was thinking of placing an offer, but I'd have to work until I died to pay for it. I'd probably be about $39,999,000 short too.


But you get to use it before you die. At that point, you wouldn't care if it were paid off or not!!


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

paddler said:


> I'm sure SITLA has to sell to the highest bidder as per their mandate. Hopefully that will be the DNR.


What does the land appraise at? DNR won't pay higher than appraisal.


----------



## 7mm Reloaded (Aug 25, 2015)

Looks like a good place for some multi million dollar mansions that will only be used about one weekend a year just like a lot of our other canyons.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

7MM RELOADED said:


> Looks like a good place for some multi million dollar mansions that will only be used about one weekend a year just like a lot of our other canyons.


That was my exact thoughts! Only I would purchase the land, cut gravel roads, find water, drill, build a storage tank, run power, etc. These improvements would only cost 4-6 million. Then...&#8230;&#8230;..Sell 1 acre cabin lots that could be year round living. Chump change if your loaded.


----------



## fobit (Mar 1, 2017)

I think Sportsmen should pressure the state to retain the trespass rights to all the state land sold, so the citizens of Utah could continue to hunt and fish on it after it is sold. Or grant an easement to the DWR so that hunters and fishermen could continue to use it?


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

fobit said:


> I think Sportsmen should pressure the state to retain the trespass rights to all the state land sold, so the citizens of Utah could continue to hunt and fish on it after it is sold. Or grant an easement to the DWR so that hunters and fishermen could continue to use it?


I agree. But, if you owned a chunk of land that big would you want "Utard hunters" trashing the place up with beer cans, TP, chip sacks, water bottles, do I need to go on?


----------

