Utah State Trust Lands - Just sayin'

BigFin

BigFin

Active Member
Messages
693
Seems like Utah hikers and other users of State Trust Lands could use a few more "political activist" in their ranks. Just sayin'.

Link here - http://www.sltrib.com/news/4062922-155/rolly-dont-think-utah-has-a

Rolly: Don?t think Utah has a double standard on public lands? Just ask these unwitting hikers
By PAUL ROLLY | The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Jul 03 2016 06:00AM

Utah government seems to have a double standard when it comes to allowing access to sensitive public lands.

When San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman was charged and convicted in federal court with organizing a motorized vehicle ride through Recapture Canyon, a protected area that the Bureau of Land Management had closed, fellow rural county commissioners and a number of legislators were outraged.

BLM officials said the ride caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage, but rural Utah officials, led by Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, cried that the arrest amounted to tyrannical federal overreach.

Noel even tried to commit taxpayer money to a legal defense fund for Lyman. When that didn't work, the Legislature approved $250,000 for the Rural Utah Alliance, a nonprofit committed to rural issues, including a potential defense fund for the commissioner.

The registered agent for the nonprofit is Lyman's attorney, Peter Stirba.

But when some folks went on a nature walk in Uintah County's Tavaputs Plateau last month, they were met by a state investigator from the Utah attorney general's office.

The A.G.'s cop, along with deputies from the Uintah County Sheriff's Office, arrested 10 hikers and hauled them off to jail in Vernal, leaving their young children at a nearby campground.

Why? They were accused of trespassing on turf administered by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) that has been leased to US Oil Sands for a tar sands mine.

Shea Wickelson, a science teacher in Salt Lake City, and her husband, Tom, were two of the 10 people taken to jail. They were held for more than 12 hours, finally being released on bail at about 4 a.m. the next day.

Their two young children remained behind at the campground with others. Wickelson's father drove the 3? hours from Salt Lake City to retrieve his grandchildren.

During the arrest, the SITLA enforcer threatened to turn over the children to the Division of Child and Family Services and charge the parents with child endangerment, Wickelson said.

Other groups have been arrested in the area before for organized protests at the tar sands site, but Wickelson said she has camped in the area and taken children and adults on nature hikes to study the diverse plant life several times before and not been busted.

Attorney Trenton Ricks is taking on the case for the hikers pro bono. He says other groups intentionally trespassed and had an expectation of being arrested as a protest against the mining. But these folks were on an educational hike, which they had taken before, and didn't realize they were in a restricted zone.

None of the 10 has been charged yet. A court hearing has been scheduled for August. The potential charges amount to class B misdemeanors, raising the question: Why weren't they just cited rather than jailed and threatened with losing their kids?

I wonder if rural officials standing up for Lyman have any concern about government overreach in this case and, perhaps, will tap some of that Rural Utah Alliance money to defend these folks.

[email protected]

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
NVB & 440 will be CHIMING in soon I suppose?(Was it Over-Reach?)

Nobody was reaching in to their Pocket?

Nobody got LaVoyed?

If I decide to Break the Law,I'm wondering if anyone will come Running to Rescue me with Free Attorney's,Lawyers & Money?

LAWYERS,GUNS & MONEY,The Sshhhitt has hit the Fan!








[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-03-16 AT 05:33PM (MST)[p]Muh local control.
Muh good old boys wouldn't do this.
Muh trust the Legislature.

Carry on.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Hey ww?

Muh Trust NO-ONE!











[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
There's trust, then there's historical past performance, in this case current performance.

A Canadian oil company giving Americans the boot from State lands...


Carry on with the Good Old Boys Club.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
So tell me Randy when I have an elk tag and I wander into a different zone than I was drawn for or purchased and kill a bull how lenient are you and the rest of the MM crowd going to be?
 
tristate hopefully it would be a mistake but you would still deserve to be punished for not knowing your location. But you won't be punished for trespassing!
 
51 hopefull,

That really depends on the state and the property in which I wander into.

My point was I have seen people on this forum crucify people that "wandered" into unapproved zones, but for this argument we want to give these naturalists a pass.
 
Yes I was assuming we were talking all public land. When someone wanders into a different zone with the intent to kill an animal you NEED to know your location. I think the point of this thread is to show state leadership incompetence. " rules for thee, but not for me" attitude. Walking around on taxpayer ground wether you are hippy hiking or hunting should go undisturbed. Hunters that are in their wrong zone don't get blasted for their boots being on that ground but for the intent on killing an animal off that ground.
 
We take it seriously for the killing of an animal. These people may take it seriously for liability and responsibility or any number of other countless reasons. Yet we question them.

Maybe the company is scared some endangered species will be discovered on the leased area and then they get kicked out to protect a cave minnow or blind legless lizard. Suddenly dozens of people are out of a job and millions lost because someone didn't consider boundaries and trespassing important.
 
Ha ha, I like the cave minnow! There is obviously more to this story than is shown. These people were probably mouthing off to the arresting officer. But the double standards of the commissioner or whatever the off road guy along with other state officials getting upset for what they did is wrong.
 
I would agree there is probably more to the story and the story itself is pretty poorly written and illogical. My point is this is an apples and oranges comparison. If you believe that the four wheeler guy got off too easy then argue that. If you feel the botanists were treated to harshly then argue that. But it isn't good to connect the two for political purposes.
 
>So tell me Randy when I
>have an elk tag and
>I wander into a different
>zone than I was drawn
>for or purchased and kill
>a bull how lenient are
>you and the rest of
>the MM crowd going to
>be?


Haha, City Boy. We all know you're not man enough to elk hunt by yourself. Your guide would know the unit boundaries.

A better analogy would of been if you wondered onto the adjacent lease.
 
tristate-

Never leave the confines of your pre-fabbed blind and corn feeder and you will avoid accidentally wandering onto the neighbor's private property.

-Hawkeye-
 
Howdy Hawkeye. I have noticed lately the only times you show up is to take cheap shots at me anymore. I assure you it won't hurt my feelings. Unlike many on here I hunt for me. I don't hunt for what you think of me.
 
>I would agree there is probably
>more to the story and
>the story itself is pretty
>poorly written and illogical.
>My point is this is
>an apples and oranges comparison.
> If you believe that
>the four wheeler guy got
>off too easy then argue
>that. If you feel
>the botanists were treated to
>harshly then argue that.
>But it isn't good to
>connect the two for political
>purposes.


If this is your point then why bring up the wrong elk unit post?
 
To make people think about the balance of their emotions next time they see posts like that on here.

All too often I watch people on here wish for obtuse, strange, and extreme punishments for people involved in what could be simple hunting mistakes. Many of these people are the exact same people which are following Randy now. The exact same level of responsibility and awareness is needed from either the elk hunter or the botanist when they enter the field. So lets keep our responses similar.
 
The problem with this article is they are only taking the account(story) from those individuals who were arrested. If you have been down seep ridge road you will notice the signs - "NO TRESPASSING" - where they were arrested. And they are posted with what will happen if you do. Heck I wish I was there to call it in to get the $500 per person who violated the law. It also is NOT mentioned that several of the individuals who were booked are actively protesting this property and oil sands company. Is it also just a coincidence that some of these individuals who got arrested were arrested a week later on the mine doing an invasive "seed bombing" on the actual mine site. 21 individuals arrested and booked into Grand County Jail. This happens to be the third year the group has planned and acted out on this property each time causing property damage and loss of $.(not to mention arrests followed for breaking the laws) The problem with this whole incident is those protesters ignored the warning signs... i.e 'NO Trespassing" and took there children with them in the hopes there would be no consequences to there actions. And that is the problem I see.
 
WOW, interesting to hear both sides of the story. Thanks. I'd like to read or see more on this. Thanks!
 
Look, y'all can drag up all the justification and spin this anyway you want.

Fact is, this is state land, under local control being leased to a foreign oil company.

Land transfer proponents tell you this is the EXACT thing that will NEVER happen once the states "TAKE BACK THEIR LANDS". This only happens with the evil Feds.

Well here ya go.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
I don't believe for a second that the state 'won't' do this, because they already are as indicated on this piece of SITLA property. I'm just saying that I don't agree with individuals breaking the law and using the children as an excuss to not be held accountable. If you don't agree with the leasing of the SITLA land to this company... contact your Rep... if fed lands were placed under the control of the states... it's safe to 'assume' they would do the same with all the land they have control because in this example they are maximizing the piece of SITLA land for monetary gain. Yes they are preventing access but the state feels this SITLA land is valuable for gain. They also could just sell the lands and you could possibly have less access than you do now.. as for 'most' land owners do not just let people onto their property with out some kind of arrangement. I would rather land stay the way it is... so I can access the parts that are not marked with trespassing, so I can take my kids on a nature hike and identify the plant species... I personally don't care what people do on private property or leased property as long as they aren't breaking the law.. If people don't agree with it... contact your Rep and make your voice heard. (Most Reps are either attorney's or land developers all of whom see the value in property and will maximize the states returns not to mention some of which will benefit personally.)
 
City Boy,
That article was poorly written and illogical at best, but I'm pretty sure Randy is still "just sayin" let Utah gain control of public land and you WILL lose access to it.
 
I think you are right 51hopefull. But he sure doesn't care if he uses a bunch of el toro doodoo to get what he wants. I guess he is one of those "ends justify the means" sort of activists. Makes you wonder where he would draw the line.
 
>Well Randy, what are you "just
>sayin'" now?

Same as I was "just sayin'" before.

That State Trust Lands are a lot different than USFS and BLM lands. Eelgrass started a good thread on this distinction.

That State Trust Lands, not just in Utah, can be leased for exclusive use that excludes public use, as was illustrated in this example, where State Trust Lands were leased under an exclusive agreement that allowed the lessee to keep others off the land.

That State Land Board leases convey a lot of rights to the leaseholder that is not conveyed under leases of BLM and USFS land.

That State Land Board rules/statutes/Constitution provide for far different access when it comes to hunting, fishing, hiking, shooting, and/or camping.

That State Land Boards being charged with maximizing cash inflows will operate those lands in many ways that are not beneficial to hunters, shooters, hiker, campers, recreationists.

That State Land Boards are very good at selling land to private parties.

That the idea of State Transfer results in public hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, shooting access to be subject to a new set of rules; the rules of that State Land Board with regards to such ownership.

That transferring Federal lands to State Land Boards bring all the changes/complications mentioned above, without solving one single issue that frustrates us about land management.

That every single thing that frustrates us about Federal land management can be fixed by Congress, but they refuse to do so. Changing land ownership does nothing to fix those issues, but makes for good soundbites.

That State Transfer is nothing but a head fake by a bunch of lazy ass Congressmen and their puppet string pullers who are funding the effort.

That's what I've been sayin' all along and that what I'm still sayin'.

Carry on......



"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
 
That's great Randy! That's quite possibly the most honest opinion I have seen connected to you and this argument.

The problem is the article YOU picked to post here ain't "just sayin'" that. The cartoon NVB posted that you narrated wasn't "Just sayin'" that.

I think if you stick with typing responses just like your last one you might actually get farther faster with your agenda.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-05-16 AT 05:10PM (MST)[p]My point is that this article is written about another piece of State-owned land that is now closed to hunting. I don't care who, or why, somebody is kicked off; just that they WERE kicked off land that most people believe to be public. This time it was environmentalist protesters kicked off the land, next time it could be your elk camp. To me, that is a distinction without a difference.

According to Utah state law (see below), SITLA-managed land is specifically excluded from the definition of "public land".

You have ZERO right to access it without the permission of a board of appointed officials. I honestly cannot see how any public land hunter could understand the minutia of the land grab and still support it.

But that's just me.

-----------------------

(10) "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.

------------------------

Grizzly
 
It's getting tougher to see who is on our side anymore. These are the same people that mess with people's hunts and now you feel bad for them? Wow!
 
Grizzly, they were going there to cause problems and they were busted. It can't be that hard to figure out can it?
 
"Grizzly, they were going there to cause problems and they were busted. It can't be that hard to figure out can it?"

According to the cop.

The Cop would lead you to believe that they were there to protest and start chit. The hikers said they weren't.

Like the article in the OP states, when Phil Lyman does this on BLM Land the Mafia on the Hill tries to divert taxpayer funds and passes the hat to cover costs.
When an average citizen WALKS on to state land leased by a foreign company the intellectually challenged labels and inferences start a flying.

F-Ing liberals, F-Ing enviro's. Immediate loss of credibility in any further discourse.

As I've said call it what you wish. The fact is the State land agency took your access for the benefit of a foreign company.
What if and or but is left to discuss?


"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
Focus on the access issue. It is really simple. The state of Utah has a very poor track record of preserving access for the public. This article is one example but there are many others. What about HB141 and the stream access debacle? That is another example where the state used the excuse of trespassing and littering to shut down stream access for everyone, including lawbiding sportsmen. Why did the state pass HB141? To cater to landowners, developers and ranchers. It is not hard to see who will get the short end of the stick if the state gets control of 20 million of acres of public land.

-Hawkeye-
 
>As I've said call it what
>you wish. The fact is
>the State land agency took
>your access for the benefit
>of a foreign company.
>What if and or but is
>left to discuss?
>
Don't think this doesn't already happen with Federal Land as well. I work at an operation that is on Federal Land, State Land and private land and the general public cannot hunt or access it as they choose. My place of work is not the only one. Many just like throughout the West.
 
Grizzly laid his cards on the table.

"I don't care who, or why, somebody is kicked off"

Another ends justify the means. One more time someone hopes better judgment won't prevail and everyone will just follow an emotional self serving agenda.

Hawkeye,

"Focus on the access issue"

Is that what your previous post was doing?
 
>
>>As I've said call it what
>>you wish. The fact is
>>the State land agency took
>>your access for the benefit
>>of a foreign company.
>>What if and or but is
>>left to discuss?
>>
>Don't think this doesn't already happen
>with Federal Land as well.
> I work at an
>operation that is on Federal
>Land, State Land and private
>land and the general public
>cannot hunt or access it
>as they choose. My
>place of work is not
>the only one. Many
>just like throughout the West.
>

Where is this Mulecreek?
 
>Grizzly laid his cards on the
>table.
>
>"I don't care who, or why,
>somebody is kicked off"
>

Since I refuse to ever respond to Tristate, I'll post this simply in case what I said earlier was confusing to those that actually want to have an honest discussion.

What I said was, "I don't care who, or why, somebody is kicked off; just that they WERE kicked off land that most people believe to be public. This time it was environmentalist protesters kicked off the land, next time it could be your elk camp."

My position remains thought-out and defensible as one that protects the rights of access to all. The short-sightedness of those who think it's okay somebody was kicked off just because they disagree with their perspective ignores the fact that next time it could be their family that's kicked off, just because a bureaucrat doesn't like what they do.

Grizzly
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-06-16 AT 10:08AM (MST)[p]>Focus on the access issue.
>It is really simple.
>The state of Utah has
>a very poor track record
>of preserving access for the
>public. . . .
>-Hawkeye-

Agreed. However, access to trust lands (which are all together different than true "public" lands) where a sensitive and harassed legal leased activity is occurring is not an example of that.
__________________________________________

This OP is a red herring, taking the bait of the anti-fossil-fuel extremists. One sided, and not at all representative of the real issues we public-land sportsmen face.

Get your attention off this red herring, and pay attention to the US Congress's attempt to sell off millions of acres of National Forest land. And the broader attempt to move even more federal lands to State (then to private) control.
 
"The short-sightedness of those who think it's okay somebody was kicked off just because they disagree with their perspective"

They were kicked off because some public land isn't allowed to be trespassed on. That includes federal lands. I know your hero Hillary doesn't have to live under rule of law but the rest of us including you do. Just because something is public property doesn't mean you deserve or have a right to unlimited use of it. Try and go hop in a police car some time and go for a spin. You own it, right?????
 
>So tell me Randy when I
>have an elk tag and
>I wander into a different
>zone than I was drawn
>for or purchased and kill
>a bull how lenient are
>you and the rest of
>the MM crowd going to
>be?

Tri, when Rulon Jones wandered off his unit, out of season and guided his client to kill a moose, he........had nothing happen, so, I guess your good.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Take a look at how state lands are laid out. There is a very good chance that anyone who has hunted Utah pubic lands have been on state land and thought they were on BLM.

I think most people would be surprised.

The map looks like someone took and shot the map of Utah with 3 rounds of #8 bird shot, and each pellet represents one
railroad section that belongs to the State.

If the state and the feds really get into it over this issue
both could lock each other out of access to a lot of land just the way it is laid out.
 

Similar threads

D
Utah trip
Replies
24
Views
852
DeerMadness
D

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

CPW Buck2.jpg
IMG_0841.PNG
DDA87A49-8666-4FDC-93A0-1595E560F25B.jpeg
20181005_123517.jpg
STC_1568.JPG
0BB2EF7C-AA58-4D63-8EEB-FDC2701C854D.jpeg
Nice Buck
2015-03-26 09.49.09_Original.jpeg
FB_IMG_1647229308285.jpg
6563D760-A005-4671-9A6E-99EC1EC1AD49.jpeg
P1010671.JPG
How big is this buck?
Back
Top Bottom