Utah School Trust Lands, PTA, and you.....

[jdubya]

For your info:

Message from the PTA that was forwarded to me.

I wanted to give you a heads up - SITLA is currently in negotiations
with
the Department of Wildlife Resources. Currently, SITLA allows hunting
on
the land it holds, and the DWR pays about $250,000/year for the
access.
SITLA has done some studies, and says that it has about 900,000 acres
of
huntable land it is allowing DWR to access, and that the market value
of
this access is between $1.3 -$2.3 million/year. The DWR is currently
discussing fee increases that would increase it's income by about $4.7
million next fiscal year, but are only willing to pay $500,000/year on
a
long term contract for hunting rights. The DWR has Regional Advisory
Councils (RACs) that will meet in the next two weeks around the state
and
take public comment on the fee increases. We are working on talking
points
for PTA members who are concerned about this to testify before the
RACs.
The main thing we need is to let them know that the public schools are
the
beneficiaries of this land, and should be compensated fairly, and that
it is
in no one's best interest to have this land made unavailable to
hunters.
The dates of the RAC meetings are held in the evening and are scheduled
as
follows:

September 12th in Kanab
September 13th in Green River
September 14th in Vernal
September 19th in Springville
September 20th in Brigham City

Here is a link to the meeting agenda that shows places, dates and
times
http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac_members.php
and here is the document that shows the fee increase proposal
http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/fees.pdf

Also, here is a link to the RAC members - will you please check and see
if
you know any of them and can contact them in the next week or so and
talk to
them about this.
http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac_members.php

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns - and I'll forward
the
talking points as soon as I get them (probably early next week).

Thanks!
Natalie Gordon
Utah PTA Trust Lands Commissioner

 

[ForkWest]

A few months back there were so many of you pushing for increased license and application fees, now whatever new moneys that would be generagted may possible be blown because one STATE agency is sticking it to another STATE agency over STATE land!!??!! Looks like the PTA is rallying their troops against us. Where's commander-in-chief Peay on ths one?

 

[Blanding_Boy]

Folks--

Please, please before you get to wound up in this please take a minute to visit SITLAs web page at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r850/r850.htm and educate yourselves on their mission and objectives and how their lands are managed and operated for natural resource leases. While these may be viewed by the public as public lands, in reality they are trust lands which clearly give SITLA or SITLA lessees the right to exclude individuals (hunters, you and I) from these lands--basically they control access on their lands. They are totally within their right to obtain monies for natural resources on their land and while the wildlife may be publicly owned the precedence has already be sent, mandated etc. so, clearly SITLA is within their legal right to glean what an independent 3rd party has determined 'fair market value' off of wildlife from their trust lands. What is fair market value is really what is at debate here.

This is going to be a very controversial and I encourage all of you to become educated on issue and not just hear what those with an agenda have to say about the issue.

I would be willing to bet that the Garth Carters or the George Tulmans of the world would be more than willing to come in and lease the 900,000 acres for a buck 50 and acre, turn them all into CWMUs and exclude us all. As it is SITLA is looking for ways to generate at a minimum 1.3 million for the lease of these lands. We can either pay or come up with a creative way to pay these monies thus allowing continued access have some rich cat pay and exclude us all.

BTW?the Don and other conservation organizations came up with their own ?fair market value? of 500k per year that will come out of the increased license sells but falls 800k short.

Todd

 

[fishon]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-19-06 AT 10:46PM (MST)[p]I have been in 2 meetings with sitla on this. I am also very well educated on what sitla land is and on what it is for.

The DWR has been paying about $240,000 a year for 9 years for access to 3.7 million acres. There is 1 year remaining on the deal that ends next September.

In my opinion sitla has came up with this 1.3 million dollar number as the worth of the property based on wildlife alone. The have not looked into any other ways to help the school kids with this ground. They want the sportsman to foot the bill because in their own words this was the easiest way to get the money they wanted.

Every sportsman group as well as the DWR agree that the ground is worth something. The figure we all came up with is $500,000 a year which is more then double what we have been paying. Also Sitla only wants to make the deal good for 900,000 acres which is only a quarter of what we have now. They also still want to be able to sell the ground if they want to.

So they want more then double what they have been getting and they want to only make the deal good for 1/4 of what we are currently getting.

The deal that MDF supports is $500,000 a year. This was the proposal the DWR gave Sitla and this is what MDF,SFW,FNAWS,NWTF,RMEF,UBA and others support.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is about the school kids because in my opinion it is not. I also am not sold on their story that this is not public ground anyway. THis is a case of 1 sister trying to muscle another sister for there own benefit.

I suggested a user fee increase and they don't want to consider it. All they want is fast easy money. The story is much deeper then Sitla or Blanding Boy will tell you. THis is not a matter of pay them what they want. This is a matter of right from wrong and worth. We believe it is worth $500,000 a year.

We need to be careful when we say what is legal and not in our opinions. The courts usually decide that. 1 thing forsure is that the school kids they claim to be representing would not see $20 each out of the 1.3 million. And these same kids are my kids and your kids and I am pretty sure they would much prefer the open space of 3.7 million acres rather then $20 for a field trip.

Just my opinion

Tony Abbott

 

[ForkWest]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-20-06 AT 08:36AM (MST)[p]Tony, well said and thanks for stating your position. Like you said there is way more to this than just the school kids, this issues is so politically laced its sickening.

Your analogy of one sister pushing around the other is right on, daddy Huntsman needs to turn around and address what's going on in his own back seat, between his own two agencies.

 

[Daxter]

If you took a bunch of money out of your left pocket and put it in your right pocket would you say wow I made a lot of money today? To me, that is what this looks like. One state agency taking money from another state agency. When that happens the general public looses.

 

[bowhunt]

Sounds like the folks that run the Trust Lands have finally figured out that the Governers Tag goes for 100k+. Land Owners charge 5k+ to trespass. You can get a 10k finders fee for a big deer or elk. I think they see CWMUs making a killing on tags...Looks like they have been getting screwed if you look at all the money that is flowing around for hunting.
Maybe we should lobby to get rid of finders fees, cap CWMU prices, get rid of "CONSERVATION TAGS" and get those tags back to the public.
I hate to say it guys but just maybe we created this monster, now we have to sleep with it.

SUCKS!!!!

 

[2_Point]

Bowhunt-- You hit it right on. Kind of hard to tell the people they can only get 50 cents an acre for a lease when comperable private land goes for over a $10 acre. Those who created the money monster are having a hard time getting it back into its cage.

 

[Blanding_Boy]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-06 AT 10:28AM (MST)[p]Tony--

As I stated previously the big debate is what is 'fair market value'. As one that is involved in leasing land--I will tell you right now if you can find me one outfitter that leases some property for 60 cents or less on the acre and show that to me on paper I will pay you a hundred bucks tomorrow! Truth be told most outfitters could look at any land that is fairly good wildlife habitat and supports wildlife and pay the landowner 1-2 bucks per acre. If SITLA has ~9000,000 acres of good wildlife then they ought to get at least 900k plus the other 2.5 million acres have got to be worth something don't you think? Your 500k and your poor science on how you came to that value is way--way under market value.

Sorry, I totally disagree with your and the other conservation organizations fair makret value approach. To simply say that the value of wildlfe has doubled over the past 10 years becuase 'we' have doubled the monies from conservation permits is no way an assessment of fair market value (you folks simply didn't do an assessment)--if that were the case then the 240k for the past 10 years has been way under as well and perphas SITLA needs to seek restitution for loss revenue.

Todd

 

[bowhunt]

Your right on Todd.
The land is worth more than 60 cents per acre. The amount of money spent on hunting is out of control. In the end it is bad for the average guy.

 

[predator]

I say let 'em try to make 'em CWMU's. I'd love to see who and how they are going to post and enforce that.....

 

[wileywapati]

Unfortunately Todd is correct in his data.

Hunting is a big business, wildlife has value and as Bowhunt
said we have created this monster and now we are at the point where the Conservation Groups and the State are not the only
entities wanting a piece of the pie.

I sat in the same meeting with Todd a few weeks ago
We are of totally different viewpoints on this. In the capacity that I attended the presentation ( BOWHUNTERS OF UTAH PRESIDENT ) I informed SITLA that I could not support any of the proposals or the offer they had presented.

I do agree that SITLA should receive some compensation for access to their property, but a 500% increase all at once, because they were "advised" that the wildlife on their lands were worth so much, didn't make sense to me then and it still doesn't now.

I agree with Lisa and Tony. Let them have their lands
let them be leased out. DONT CALL THE STATE TO DO FIRE CONTROL,
ANY TYPE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, ANY TYPE OF ROAD MAINTENANCE, ANY HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND SINCE THIS IS "PRIVATELY HELD LAND"
MAKE SURE YOU FILE PROPERTY TAXES EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

SITLA is opening a can of worms between themselves and the state. Guess we'll see which entity has the most worms

 

[fishon]

What is the land worth if DWR does not patrol it? WHat is it worth if it all becomes genral season units? What is it worth if conservation groups do not enhance it? WHat is it worth then?

Yes sportsman created the "value" of wildlife. Sitla's numbers are their opinions that their consultants came up with. Its just like your lawyer will make a case for you not the defendent even if it is not the truth. Sitla had a number 1.3 million that they wanted. There 1st try to get it through tags didn't work so now they came up with another way to get 1.3 million. It does not mean they are right or correct.

As I said earlier. The kids they claim to be representing are my kids. And it is not in the best intrest of my kids to sell off and lease 3.7 million acres just so people at sitla can get their commission and the kids can get an icecream sandwich.

Sportsman changed the constitution of this state not to long ago and I know united they can do it again. This will not be over anytime soon unless sitla accepts the generous offer that the dwr has made.

I know what wildlife is worth because like many of you I helped grow it. Sitla needs to look at other options rather then just the easy one that THEIR consultants came up with.

Tony

 

[Legolas]

I'm a school teacher as well as a hunter who sometimes hunts on SITLA lands, so I'm looking at both ends of the horse at the same time. They both look like the rear end to me.

The PTA doesn't have anything to do with this issue. The SITLA money that eventually trickles down to site schools isn't much, but it helps, (averages just less than $9 per kid annually). How that money is spent once it reaches a site school is determined by the school council and there are restrictions on how the money can be spent. Those restrictions were tightened up this year. I'm all for that because believe me, nobody can piss away money like the school system can.

SITLA has been through some shake ups over the past couple of years and is currently under increased pressure to turn a profit from these lands. How that profit is made is up to the administrators but it should be as restricted as how the money is spent. THAT's a vital component of the solution here. Otherwise, there's only one inevitable outcome. Sooner or later, SITLA land will be sold to development.

I appreciate the hard work of those reps who are at the negotiation table. But just calling on your conservation org heroes to save us won't cut it, folks. As has been said, get informed and get involved.

 

[bowhunt]

Legolas,

Thanks for the insight! I think we are getting informed, how do you suggest we get involved? I would love to, just not sure what to do.

Thanks!

 

[Legolas]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-23-06 AT 08:55AM (MST)[p]We've all got different capabilities and Natalie's message has some great suggestions, but here's some more ways to get involved:

1. If you've got kids, get involved in your local school and attend district board meetings. Not that it's the only reason to be involved in your kid's school, but less frivolous spending = less need for funding.

You can also support the current movement to break up large school districts since they are the most wasteful. I know that doesn't sound right, but I've watched it with my own eyes for 20 years now and it's a fact.

2. Pressure legislators for adequate education funding that is earmarked for the kids.

3. Support the organization reps in their negotiations and encourage them to stay together on this issue. It seems to me that the best move is to throw whatever weight we have behind the DWR. The potential for manipulating this situation to the advantage of particular orgs is obvious, but it isn't the wise or the ethical thing to do in this case.

4. Under Title 53C, the Governor selects the Board members and even though he doesn't have complete control of SITLA, he is probably our best point of influence. We need to place limitations on the administration of trust lands. Specifically, prohibit the outright sale of trust lands. Tell Huntsman to get on this. He's not a financial dummy and can surely understand that while the sale of trust lands provides an immediate gain, it doesn't make long term financial sense. Once those lands are sold, there's no profit to be made.

5. Contact the SITLA board members as concerned citizens and parents who consider hunting, fishing and other outdoors activities on SITLA lands to be a value for kids in and of itself. Not all education comes from a teacher or a classroom.

http://www.utahtrustlands.com/board/?pageID=2

 

[kchristy]

While everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion, some clarifications on this issue are in order. I apologize up front for the length of this response, but hopefully it will clear up some misunderstandings.

- Trust lands were granted to Utah schools by the United States Congress in 1894 (two years prior to statehood) for the financial support of Utah?s public schools. The lands were granted in a trust, with public schools as the primary beneficiary of the trust. They are not public lands. This fact is backed up by Utah?s Constitution, state law, and 200 years of case-law. Utah law states that the trust beneficiary ?. . . does not include other governmental institutions or agencies, the public at large, or the general welfare of the state.? UCA 53C-1-102(2)(d).

- In 1994, following a two-year legislative task force and a one year citizen task force, the Legislature reorganized the administration of trust lands and clarified its mandate to be run as a business. Because it is run as a business, no tax money is used for the management of trust lands. The Trust Lands Administration is required by law to receive fair market value for the use of its lands, where commercial opportunities present themselves. This includes commercialized hunting opportunities that are clearly out there and in strong demand.

- In 1997, the Trust Lands Administration entered into an agreement (a Memorandum of Understanding) with the Division of Wildlife Resources. Essentially, the agreement provides that most of the 3.4 million acres of trust lands is open for public hunting. This access for unencumbered (non-leased) properties was granted in return for an annual payment of $200,000. It was recognized that the $200,000 was below market value and that both agencies would also pursue additional general fund appropriations from the legislature for access to trust lands by the general public. Moreover, this agreement precluded the creation of CWMUs on trust lands for its ten year term. The agreement expires in 2007.

- The annual payment is still grossly under market even though it has gradually increased to ~$240,000 due to CPI inflationary adjustments.

- The Trust Lands Administration recently hired independent hunting consultants to determine the potential value of hunting access on its lands in Utah. The appraisal identifies almost 1 million acres of trust land that could be commercialized and leased to outfitters and adjoining landowners for marketing hunter access. The appraisal supports marketable values ranging from $1.3 million to $2.3 million per year for access to the Trust's most valuable hunting areas.

- The Trust Lands Administration believes it could lease its prime hunting lands for at least $1.3 million per year for access to hunting on trust lands. It would prefer to keep these lands open for public access to hunters if a way to provide fair values to the schools can be found.

- The fact is that DWR?s offer of $500,000 is far below what the market would bear when compared to private leasing options that would yield much more than that amount, but would eliminate public access.

- For the past three years, Trust Lands has engaged the Division of Wildlife Resources in discussions to formulate a new agreement that more accurately reflects current fair value for hunter access to trust lands.

- This year Trust Lands also invited several sportsmen?s groups to help find a mutually acceptable way to provide public access to trust lands for hunting, while fairly compensating schools for hunter access.

- If the schools receive fair compensation, the Trust Lands Administration intends on investing a portion of the proceeds in habitat improvement for wildlife on trust lands to improve quality hunting opportunities. The current agreement provides little to no incentive for trust lands to invest back in the land for wildlife habitat purposes.

- Contrary to Mr. Abbott's comment, The Trust Lands Administration is not advocating that an agreement would limit public access to only ? of its lands. It's anticipated that a fair settlement would provide public access to most, if not all of its unencumbered lands (over 3 million acres).

- Most importantly, the Trust Lands Administration prefers to keep school lands open to the public for hunting. But consistent with its mandate, it must receive a fair return in order to preserve that option on its commercially marketable lands.

Kim Christy

 

[wileywapati]

Kim as I stated in the meeting "fair market value" is a whole hell of a lot different from what SITLA has been "ADVISED" to the circumstances of what the 99% of the hunters in Utah consider "fair market value"

So the whole sticking point is going to come down to the "ADVISED" $1.3 Million fair market value you are mandated by law to seek.

If I go to a fundraiser with the intention of purchasing a tag knowing that 90% of this money will go back to wildlife
and I will be able to deduct anything above the normal tag cost
as a charitable contribution that is one thing. If you wish to base your "FAIR MARKET VALUE" figures based on a formula derived from the conservation tag sales then you are barking up the wrong tree.

SITLA is entitled to fair compensation for access to it's lands but a 500% increase because of flawed "ADVICE" is an insult to every taxpaying hunter in Utah.

As bowhunt said the Cons Org's. and the Utah DWR created this commercialization of wildlife fiasco, 200 tags here 350 auction tags there $1.3 million to access 973,000 acres of gifted lands!!
Where does it all end for the average Joe??

Kim as I told you I am just a guy that wants to hunt
(specifically with a bow) I don't have all of the answers
but I know a fleecing of sportsmen and sportswomen when I see it.

Good luck with the responses you are going to get from this Board.

Gordy Bell
Bowhunters Of Utah

 

[fishon]

Clarification

I never said you would limit access to 1/4 I said you would only include 1/4 in the agreement, thus leaving nearly 3 million acres out of the current agreement.

Also Sitla would retain the right to sell the ground as well if the right deal came around. Both of these are unacceptable.

The whole story needs to be brought out of the dark. I would like to see right here on this fourm if sitla is going to accept the fair offer of the dwr or not.

I also want to know how much the school kids stand to receive off of this proposal after commisions and consulting fee's.

I would like to know specifically how much per kid.

Also I would like to know why if sitla is so willing to give back to wildlife a portion of the "rent" why wouldn't sitla just ask for that much less on the total price.

These grounds are every bit as important to remain open to the public as they are to raise pennies per school kid.

Lets see the numbers then lets hear what the public thinks.

tony

 

[jdubya]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-23-06 AT 06:38PM (MST)[p]>- Trust lands were granted to
>Utah schools by the United
>States Congress in 1894 (two
>years prior to statehood) for
>the financial support of Utah?s
>public schools. The lands
>were granted in a trust,
>with public schools as the
>primary beneficiary of the trust.
> They are not public
>lands.

It will be interesting if this proves to be true. You can't put CWMU's on public land unless it is meant to bridge to private lands. So if SITLA can prove the lands are private, then they can go this route. If not, then they can't. That makes a huge, huge difference in the value of these lands vis a vis hunting access fees.

 

[dkpeay]

This is a very serious issue with HUGE implecations for every Utah hunter. I put a very detailed response under loosing 900,000 acres post.

If sportsmen loose access to the book cliffs, that means 4,000 hunters will be apply for your favorite elk or deer unit, making the odds worse for everyone.

This is also a very complicated legal and political issue. Some in SITLA think they hold all the cards. They don't. to turn SITLA lands into private hunting preserves, or to block access to sportsmen would require changing the current state law.

Governor Huntsman really has little say in this, as SITLA appoints its own Board.

The Legislature holds the cards, because they must change a current state law.

Hopefully, SITLA will recognize a win/win solution and accept the DWR MDF, SFW, FNAWS, NWTF, etc. proposal of $500,000 a year in pure profit for the school kids.

Don Peay

 

[utroyalwulff]

Well I guess we really all need to write our legislature and tell them to get it changed because SITLA is out of control. This BS about doing all this for the children and then only giving them a 2% return is stupid. The little hole issue has just shown that they will do what they want to get their commmissions, and this is probably the same in reality. Why give them anymore money at all? Lets see them enforce this-- whos going to do it the DWR. You can bet if you give into them this year with 500K they will want twice that much next year!