Utah to Auction off State Wildlife Lands to Increase Amount of Private Lands

[bigtex]

Utah to auction part of Lake Canyon wildlife area

Uinta Basin » Rural counties don’t like losing private land, which supports tax base, economic development.

By Brian Maffly
| The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Jun 11 2014 09:31 am • Updated 3 hours ago

The state of Utah owns nearly half a million acres it manages as safe havens for big game, birds and fish. But with some counties concerned about a dearth of privately held — and taxable — property, the Division of Wildlife Resources is selling pieces of wildlife management areas, including 1,070 acres in Duchesne County.

On June 25 the state will auction some of its holdings in Lake Canyon, a scenic canyon off the Strawberry River that the division acquired in 2001 to support brood populations of native cutthroat trout. The sale is part of a commitment the agency made to the county, which wants to guard against a net loss of private lands within its borders, according to Stephen Hansen, DWR’s land and water asset manager.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57981174-78/amp-lake-canyon-county.html.csp

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Following written by Bigtex:
Many states do not provide any support to the counties in which state lands are located, however Washington does provide support. Under state law both DNR and WDFW provide funding, known as Payments In-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to counties with state lands in them. PILT is essentially seen as off-setting the loss of tax revenue.

For WDFW typically the county must decide between receivng PILT or retaining the funds received from fish and wildlife offenses, typically about 30 of the 39 counties will request PILT, in this case the fish and wildlife offense money then goes to the state general fund. However, the legislature has enacted "temporary" laws that state from 2011-15 ALL counties will get to keep the fish and wildlife offense money, however only 13 counties (all in eastern WA with high WDFW acreage) will get PILT. So from 2011-15 there is essentially no choosing. Under the current formula for how WDFW pays out PILT counties actually receive PILT at a payment equal to, or greather than if the lands were privately held and the county was receiving actual tax money.

On the federal side all land management agencies pay PILT to the counties with federal lands in them. Federally PILT has been paid out since 1976 when the Federal Lands Management and Policy Act (FLPMA) was enacted. Unfortunately Congress lately has been using PILT as a bargaining chip, they will extend it for one year, or 3 years, or 5 years, then they'll use it in a political game, etc. PILT was enacted to be a permanent law, however Congress has yet to actually authorize it to be permanent. However, saying that, it has been paid out every year since 1976 and there are many in Congress that are trying to make it permanent.

So what is the major difference between the WA PILT and the federal PILT? Federal law requires counties also to allocate money they receive to their junior taxing districts such as school distrits, hospital districts and so on just as if the lands were privately held. WA does not have such a law, if a county wanted to keep all the PILT they received in county coffers then they could, some counties do allocate it out to the junior taxing districts, some do not.

So just how much money does WA receive in PILT? In 2013 the federal government paid out over $17,000,000 in PILT to counties in WA for federal lands. WDFW paid out $580,000 to the 13 counties that are entitled to PILT under the "temporary" law enacted for 2011-15

[Special T]

Interesting thanks!

[bigtex]

Utah has actually passed a law saying the feds are to turn over all federally managed lands managed by the federal land management agencies except for National Park Service lands and wilderness areas managed by any of the agencies. The Utah bill has been used as a model in other states, including in WA.

Now the interesting thing is Utah has always said they "would never sell" any of the federal lands they would receive from the feds which would be free of cost to the state, yet they are selling state lands they actually purchased??

Hmm, for some reason I don't believe the whole "would never sell" comment regarding the federal lands.

[bearpaw]

There is more to this story...

I hunt in Duchesne County every year and know a fair bit about the area. One rancher, I used to hunt on two of his ranches, recently sold one ranch of roughly 10,000 acres of critical wildlife range that is now part of one of Utah's best Wildlife Management Areas. He sold it to the UDWR (state) for a very low price. It was sort of a conservation gift if you will to his community and to wildlife, which he loves. This same man also served on the Utah Wildlife Commission for several years, another indication of his community dedication.

I would imagine that the sale of only 1,000 acres at full value is a fair trade-off for the 10,000ish acres acquired cheaply for the publicly accessible Wildlife Management Area that Utah recently gained.

[bigtex]

I would imagine that the sale of only 1,000 acres at full value is a fair trade-off for the 10,000ish acres acquired cheaply for the publicly accessible Wildlife Management Area that Utah recently gained.

I am sure there are people (such as locals) who use the Lake Canyon Wildlife Area that would think otherwise 

That would be like WDFW saying their going to close/eliminate WDFW boat launches at 3 lakes and thus end access, but hey we just opened a really big launch at this other lake!

It's still eliminating access.

[bearpaw]

of course, but cmon, 1,000 acres for 10,000 acres....