Founder
Founder Since 1999
- Messages
- 11,474
Don Peay asked me to post this for him.
Don Peay writes, "I write this, having served as a Board Member of the Trust Lands for 6 years, and being the principle architect of the past ten year deal where SITLA and the ?School Children? received over $2.2 Million from hunters.
Here are some facts:
The $500,000 offer a year to SITLA from the DWR, which is supported by SFW, FNAWS, MDF, Utah RMEF, and others is 100% pure profit, no administrative costs, etc. In addition to the $500,000 that will go into the SITLA Trust fund, the DWR and the conservation groups will continue to invest millions of dollars on Federal and SITLA lands to make habitat improvement projects. When you consider all the facts, this is a fair market deal for SITLA based on the following facts:
A. How much would it cost SITLA to try and enforce trespass issues in the roadless area of the Book Cliffs, where the DWR owns 8,000 acres in all the canyon bottoms surrounded by 50,000 acres of SITLA lands ?
B. How much would it cost SITLA to do all the predator control, population surveys, management, etc if they got their $1.3 million, but then had to pay all the management and administrative costs to produce and keep the wildlife that creates the value ?
Here are some reasons SITLA is not entitled to the windfall amount they are asking:
A. SITLA has done nothing to produce the wildlife value ? the $1.3 million they claim they want. IN fact, SITLA has been very anti-wildlife and anti-DWR. Even recently, SITLA has opposed bison restoration efforts because it might hurt their oil and gas royalties ? NOT true, but their stand. SITLA was opposed to DWR buying Greg Cunningham out of the roadless area, and other parts. IN fact SITLA proposed charging DWR one grazing permit fee, and cattleman a lower one ? didn't happen.
B. IF SITLA had prevailed previously, and there were only cattle on SITLA lands ? as many in SITLA wanted ? there would be NO opportunity for any $1.3 Million annual windfall profit from wildlife.
C. In spite of SITLA, the DWR and the organized sportsmen groups have spent ten years and millions of dollars in habitat management, predator control, transplants, management of hunters, and other activities to create Utah?s highly valued herds. Remember, the Book Cliffs was closed to hunting not to long ago because the deer herds were in such poor shape.
D. In addition to the DWR paying SITLA $225,000 a year, DWR is the largest grazing permit lease holder of SITLA lands (another $40,000 plus a year in payments), and now it is very ironic that since DWR and the sportsmen have decided to use the grazing permits to grow wildlife, NOT cattle, SITLA wants a windfall from DWR and sportsmen efforts, NOT SITLAs efforts.
For those who think that SITLA can lease land for several dollars an acre to outfitters, they don't understand that hunters don't pay to walk through aspen stands, they pay to hunt animals owned by the STATE ? Not SITLA. And they don't understand that the price per acre is determined by the Quantity and Quality of animals on the land. The value per acre is Exponential, Not linear, in relation to the Boone and Crockett score of animals produced. The Boone and Crockett score of animals annually produced is determined by the DWR and sportsmen, NOT SITLA.
A. The projected value of SITLA $1.3 Million a year, is based primarily on the management proscription of the hunt area, not the land ownership. The big bucks and bulls that create the ?potential value? are created by the DWR, the Wildlife Board, and the sportsmen.
B. If the sportsmen, the DWR and the Wildlife Board decide to turn areas such as the SITLA blocks in the Book Cliffs, the Lasals, and other places into general season hunts, NOT limited draw units, the potential value to SITLA falls exponentially.
C. The DWR, sportsmen and Board could also vote to issue many late season elk and deer permits when deer and elk move onto BLM lands. If items B & C are implemented, the ?potential value? to SITLA is dramatically lowered.
D. When the past SITLA Chairman realized he didn't hold all the cards to capture value of wildlife that live on SITLA lands for part of the year, he was willing to find a win/win deal that was in place for the past ten years. The current SITLA Board should do the same. The information provided to the SITLA Board is incomplete, and doesn't factor in all the issues pertinent to the decision.
E. When legislators listen to all the facts around what creates and maintains value in wildlife, they will also realize that SITLA isn't the reason for the total value of the herds, and that other factors such as sportsmen investment, Federal land investment, DWR costs to produce value ? game management, surveys, poaching patrol, transplant cost, predator control, habitat improvement, grazing permit lease payments, DWR deciding to use their SITLA grazing permits to grow wildlife not cattle, etc.
F. I will be more than willing to take on any/all of SITLA?s paid consultants who estimated the $1.3 value to SITLA. They are wrong in their analysis, and this issue will most likely end up at the legislature, who will be the jury.
G. $500,000 a year, $5 Million for ten years is a good deal for SITLA and the ?school kids? This is a value that did NOT exist 10 years ago.
The politics of the situation ? politics and the legislature will most likely determine the final outcome
A. The difference between the DWR offer and SITLA request is $800,000 a year. That money goes into a TRUST account and the annual interest would generate about $40,000 a year to the school kids. Do you think the legislature is going to change STATE law, and allow SITLA to lease 900,000 acres to outfitters ? who would kick Utah residents of this land for less than a dime ? that is right - $0.10 per school kid in Utah ?
B. For Todd Black, Mr. Blanding boy who trashes SFW regularly, just state your intentions, you want, you think you will get the hunting rights to the Lasal Land blocks about 2, 10,000 acre blocks, and then you will be a ?CWMU? SITLA outfitter.
C. SFW strongly supports outfitters, and through our combined efforts, has created a very strong and lucrative outfitting business on public lands. Even though turning SITLA lands into CWMUs, which would provide more guided clients, the SFW member outfitters such as Troy Justenson, Doyle Moss, etc. are adamantly opposed to turning any SITLA lands into CWMUs. They support the ?average? Utah hunter, all of us paying $500,000 to SITLA, so when the average Utah citizen draws a Book Cliffs, tag, etc. we can go and enjoy the DWR and SITLA lands.
D. I think you will see the CWMU association oppose the SITLA proposal, it will create a back lash against their current private land operations.
E. SFW will continue to support investment on SITLA, Federal and private lands that will increase herd sizes of elk and deer. Larger base herds would result in more tags being issued, but KEEP the current world class quality. As herds increase, everyone wins. More tags for the public hunter, more outfitting for guides, more revenue for DWR and local economies, and even more money for SITLA.
F. SILTA tried to get out the PTA to the RAC meetings to support a higher license increase, to get SITLA more money. Not one PTA person came, and in fact many school teachers and PTA members are highly offended from SITLAs greedy position.
SITLA is Not an honorable business partner
A. When there was a 200,000 acre land exchange some years ago, we asked that SITLA sell just 1,400 hundred acres of SITLA land to sportsmen at FAIR market value. SITLA declined the offer, because they are so arrogant they think they can do anything ?in the name of the school kids? Congressman Jim Hansen would not pass the legislation completing the 200,000 acre state/federal exchange until SITLA agreed to sell the 1,400 acres. SITLA lost that political fight, and agreed to the deal. SITLA sold Sportsmen for Habitat 640 acres just below the B in Beaver for around $400,000. SITLA has failed, in spite of repeated attempts to sell the rest of the land agreed upon near the cedar city ? about 800 acres of Quichipa deer winter range.
SFW has done battle and won against the ?all mighty? education lobby, who represents ?the school children?. They don't represent my school kids or hundreds of thousands of other school kids. More and more, they represent a bureaucracy that needs dramatic reform.
SFW will be joined on this issue by other sportsmen groups, and most likely by tens of thousands of other sportsmen who haven't been involved.
SITLA administration has done a fine job increasing the TRUST fund from about $36 million when I went on their Board - $250 Million when I left ? to about $800 Million today I think. SITLA can do lots to enhance the assets of the TRUST lands and help the school kids without destroying some of the great things about Utah, and why all of love to live here and educate our kids here.
SITLA administrators are working for a $150,000 or so bonus, what they don't realize is they are trying to take away hunters heritage. They will loose that fight. And if there is going to be a fight, you might just as well throw the first punch. Here it is.
Don Peay"
Don Peay writes, "I write this, having served as a Board Member of the Trust Lands for 6 years, and being the principle architect of the past ten year deal where SITLA and the ?School Children? received over $2.2 Million from hunters.
Here are some facts:
The $500,000 offer a year to SITLA from the DWR, which is supported by SFW, FNAWS, MDF, Utah RMEF, and others is 100% pure profit, no administrative costs, etc. In addition to the $500,000 that will go into the SITLA Trust fund, the DWR and the conservation groups will continue to invest millions of dollars on Federal and SITLA lands to make habitat improvement projects. When you consider all the facts, this is a fair market deal for SITLA based on the following facts:
A. How much would it cost SITLA to try and enforce trespass issues in the roadless area of the Book Cliffs, where the DWR owns 8,000 acres in all the canyon bottoms surrounded by 50,000 acres of SITLA lands ?
B. How much would it cost SITLA to do all the predator control, population surveys, management, etc if they got their $1.3 million, but then had to pay all the management and administrative costs to produce and keep the wildlife that creates the value ?
Here are some reasons SITLA is not entitled to the windfall amount they are asking:
A. SITLA has done nothing to produce the wildlife value ? the $1.3 million they claim they want. IN fact, SITLA has been very anti-wildlife and anti-DWR. Even recently, SITLA has opposed bison restoration efforts because it might hurt their oil and gas royalties ? NOT true, but their stand. SITLA was opposed to DWR buying Greg Cunningham out of the roadless area, and other parts. IN fact SITLA proposed charging DWR one grazing permit fee, and cattleman a lower one ? didn't happen.
B. IF SITLA had prevailed previously, and there were only cattle on SITLA lands ? as many in SITLA wanted ? there would be NO opportunity for any $1.3 Million annual windfall profit from wildlife.
C. In spite of SITLA, the DWR and the organized sportsmen groups have spent ten years and millions of dollars in habitat management, predator control, transplants, management of hunters, and other activities to create Utah?s highly valued herds. Remember, the Book Cliffs was closed to hunting not to long ago because the deer herds were in such poor shape.
D. In addition to the DWR paying SITLA $225,000 a year, DWR is the largest grazing permit lease holder of SITLA lands (another $40,000 plus a year in payments), and now it is very ironic that since DWR and the sportsmen have decided to use the grazing permits to grow wildlife, NOT cattle, SITLA wants a windfall from DWR and sportsmen efforts, NOT SITLAs efforts.
For those who think that SITLA can lease land for several dollars an acre to outfitters, they don't understand that hunters don't pay to walk through aspen stands, they pay to hunt animals owned by the STATE ? Not SITLA. And they don't understand that the price per acre is determined by the Quantity and Quality of animals on the land. The value per acre is Exponential, Not linear, in relation to the Boone and Crockett score of animals produced. The Boone and Crockett score of animals annually produced is determined by the DWR and sportsmen, NOT SITLA.
A. The projected value of SITLA $1.3 Million a year, is based primarily on the management proscription of the hunt area, not the land ownership. The big bucks and bulls that create the ?potential value? are created by the DWR, the Wildlife Board, and the sportsmen.
B. If the sportsmen, the DWR and the Wildlife Board decide to turn areas such as the SITLA blocks in the Book Cliffs, the Lasals, and other places into general season hunts, NOT limited draw units, the potential value to SITLA falls exponentially.
C. The DWR, sportsmen and Board could also vote to issue many late season elk and deer permits when deer and elk move onto BLM lands. If items B & C are implemented, the ?potential value? to SITLA is dramatically lowered.
D. When the past SITLA Chairman realized he didn't hold all the cards to capture value of wildlife that live on SITLA lands for part of the year, he was willing to find a win/win deal that was in place for the past ten years. The current SITLA Board should do the same. The information provided to the SITLA Board is incomplete, and doesn't factor in all the issues pertinent to the decision.
E. When legislators listen to all the facts around what creates and maintains value in wildlife, they will also realize that SITLA isn't the reason for the total value of the herds, and that other factors such as sportsmen investment, Federal land investment, DWR costs to produce value ? game management, surveys, poaching patrol, transplant cost, predator control, habitat improvement, grazing permit lease payments, DWR deciding to use their SITLA grazing permits to grow wildlife not cattle, etc.
F. I will be more than willing to take on any/all of SITLA?s paid consultants who estimated the $1.3 value to SITLA. They are wrong in their analysis, and this issue will most likely end up at the legislature, who will be the jury.
G. $500,000 a year, $5 Million for ten years is a good deal for SITLA and the ?school kids? This is a value that did NOT exist 10 years ago.
The politics of the situation ? politics and the legislature will most likely determine the final outcome
A. The difference between the DWR offer and SITLA request is $800,000 a year. That money goes into a TRUST account and the annual interest would generate about $40,000 a year to the school kids. Do you think the legislature is going to change STATE law, and allow SITLA to lease 900,000 acres to outfitters ? who would kick Utah residents of this land for less than a dime ? that is right - $0.10 per school kid in Utah ?
B. For Todd Black, Mr. Blanding boy who trashes SFW regularly, just state your intentions, you want, you think you will get the hunting rights to the Lasal Land blocks about 2, 10,000 acre blocks, and then you will be a ?CWMU? SITLA outfitter.
C. SFW strongly supports outfitters, and through our combined efforts, has created a very strong and lucrative outfitting business on public lands. Even though turning SITLA lands into CWMUs, which would provide more guided clients, the SFW member outfitters such as Troy Justenson, Doyle Moss, etc. are adamantly opposed to turning any SITLA lands into CWMUs. They support the ?average? Utah hunter, all of us paying $500,000 to SITLA, so when the average Utah citizen draws a Book Cliffs, tag, etc. we can go and enjoy the DWR and SITLA lands.
D. I think you will see the CWMU association oppose the SITLA proposal, it will create a back lash against their current private land operations.
E. SFW will continue to support investment on SITLA, Federal and private lands that will increase herd sizes of elk and deer. Larger base herds would result in more tags being issued, but KEEP the current world class quality. As herds increase, everyone wins. More tags for the public hunter, more outfitting for guides, more revenue for DWR and local economies, and even more money for SITLA.
F. SILTA tried to get out the PTA to the RAC meetings to support a higher license increase, to get SITLA more money. Not one PTA person came, and in fact many school teachers and PTA members are highly offended from SITLAs greedy position.
SITLA is Not an honorable business partner
A. When there was a 200,000 acre land exchange some years ago, we asked that SITLA sell just 1,400 hundred acres of SITLA land to sportsmen at FAIR market value. SITLA declined the offer, because they are so arrogant they think they can do anything ?in the name of the school kids? Congressman Jim Hansen would not pass the legislation completing the 200,000 acre state/federal exchange until SITLA agreed to sell the 1,400 acres. SITLA lost that political fight, and agreed to the deal. SITLA sold Sportsmen for Habitat 640 acres just below the B in Beaver for around $400,000. SITLA has failed, in spite of repeated attempts to sell the rest of the land agreed upon near the cedar city ? about 800 acres of Quichipa deer winter range.
SFW has done battle and won against the ?all mighty? education lobby, who represents ?the school children?. They don't represent my school kids or hundreds of thousands of other school kids. More and more, they represent a bureaucracy that needs dramatic reform.
SFW will be joined on this issue by other sportsmen groups, and most likely by tens of thousands of other sportsmen who haven't been involved.
SITLA administration has done a fine job increasing the TRUST fund from about $36 million when I went on their Board - $250 Million when I left ? to about $800 Million today I think. SITLA can do lots to enhance the assets of the TRUST lands and help the school kids without destroying some of the great things about Utah, and why all of love to live here and educate our kids here.
SITLA administrators are working for a $150,000 or so bonus, what they don't realize is they are trying to take away hunters heritage. They will loose that fight. And if there is going to be a fight, you might just as well throw the first punch. Here it is.
Don Peay"
