Utah Outdoor and Wildlife Network

05/15/2025

03/18/2025

Our public lands are precious to each and every one of us. It is important to our health and well-being.

02/27/2018

There are numerous bills before the 2018 Utah State Legislature that will be bad for us if they are passed.
HB 329 would change the status of the Aquaculture Advisory Board from an advisory board to a policy board. It would give the revised board concurrent authority with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Utah Department of Agriculture. This would remove any oversight of the aquaculture industry. It isn't broke, why does it need a fix?
HB 272 would enable the transfer of State Forestry, Fire, and State Lands property IN Utah Lake to facilitate a development IN Utah Lake. The proposed development would supposedly help clean up the lake by dredging sediments from the lake bottom to make islands. These islands would then be supposedly developed in a manner which would clean up the water quality. The estimated cost is in the billions. That being said, the worst part of this bill is the amendment which would allow land transfers from the Division of State Forestry, Fire, and State Lands (specific to Utah Lake) with approval from (just) the Legislative Management Committee and the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment interim committee of the Legislature. The language says " division may dispose of appropriately available state land in and around Utah
69 Lake as compensation for the comprehensive restoration of Utah Lake under a restoration
70 proposal if the division finds that the restoration project will: (see the rest of the text at le.utah.gov Type HB 272 in the search window.
There are many others that will negatively affect our outdoors are under way as well.
Get involved!

04/25/2017

Just heard today that President Trump is reviewing all of the Antiquities Act designations for the last 21 years. There's a reason the Antiquities Act was started, it's because politicians cannot fathom the value of preserving something for future generations.

There is a lot of whining about the Bear's Ears Monument here in Utah, but if Representative Bishop and Representative Chaffetz had any kind of balls they would have ran the Bear's Ears as a National Conservation Area. After all, it was listed in the horrible Public Lands Initiative (PLI) at almost the exact same acreage as the current monument designation.

The Antiquities Act has been in place since 1906 and not one other President has sought to overturn any designations made since then. All of the monuments and subsequent National Parks have been an economic boon to the communities by or on the way to the scenic area.

Recreation and tourism in Utah provides over $7 billion dollars in annual, direct, economic benefit to the state of Utah. It's the "goose that lays the golden egg".

I certainly hope that President Trump will choose otherwise (I'm not very confident that he will) and not tinker with the Bear's Ears or Grand Staircase Escalante National Monuments. History will look upon him poorly if he takes this path.

01/26/2017

A property owner up behind Strawberry Reservoir is putting in a driveway to the two houses he is building. Now why anyone needs a 40 foot wide driveway is beyond me, but the part where he illegally plowed, salted, sanded and took heavy equipment across the dam, really chaps me. Wasatch County has to know about it, but they are strangely silent. If I did something like this they would throw the book at me.

10/29/2016

Unfortunately we lost another reservoir to the drought and irrigation. Piute Reservoir was drained down to just the old river channel and most, if not all, of the fish were lost. Probably the worst part is that huge amounts of sediment are being sent down the main Sevier River. No one knows if that fishery has been lost.

We need to change our water laws so that wildlife can be recognized as a beneficial use of water. Until such a change occurs, it is a waste of time and money to continue to stock Piute Reservoir. One that is used mostly by locals, but if the fishery could be maintained it could draw people from outside the area (spending money in the local economy).

03/15/2016

This may be a little long winded but it highlights the good (very little) with Rob Bishop's Public Lands Initiative (PLI) and the bad (lots, and lots, and lots). Hopefully everyone will take the time to read the entire PLI (utahpli.com), all 65, unfinished pages.

The Public Lands Initiative An outdoor enthusiasts perspective
The Good:
• Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (BLM etc.) and the Secretary of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service) to manage wildland fire, treat hazardous fuels, insects, and diseases in the Wilderness, National Conservation Area (NCA), or Sportsman’s Conservation Area (SCA).
• Allows the use of aircraft and mechanized equipment to fight wildfires within Wilderness, NCA’s, or SCA’s.
• Allows the installation of wildlife water development projects (usually guzzlers) within Wilderness areas, NCA’s , and SCA’s.
• Guiding and outfitting is an allowable commercial enterprise in Wilderness area, NCA’s, and SCA’s
• The state still has management of wildlife in Wilderness areas, NCA’s, and SCA’s.
• If hunting, fishing, recreational and target shooting was allowed before designation, then it must be allowed to continue.
• Once property is given a special designation, i.e. wilderness, then it can’t be sold or disposed of; patented under mining law; and is withdrawn from mineral leasing, mineral materials (?), and geothermal leasing. Although the section does say subject to valid existing rights, so I’m guessing this one could be a “two edged sword”.
• Oil and gas leasing and drilling on NCA’s can only occur outside the boundary of the NCA and only with directional drilling. No surface occupancy or disturbance can occur within the NCA boundaries.
• The Book Cliff’s Sportsmen’s National Conservation Area (BCSNCA) will have an 11 member advisory council to assist with the development of the management plan for the NCA. A similar council is part of the Bear’s Ears National Conservation Area.
• Commercial timber harvest is allowed in the SCA’s to improve forest health and for watershed protection.
• Jurassic National Monument - all I can say is wow!. I can’t imagine Utah’s Legislature supporting such a designation. I am guessing this is Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry?
• Title II the cooperative management of Goblin Valley . Section 202 - I think allowing the state to manage this area is a good idea as they already have a presence there. See the bad however!

The Bad:
• The number and type of livestock allowed to graze in Wilderness, NCA’s, or SCA’s shall continue at the levels prescribed in the grazing permit at the time an area receives special designation. An increase in Animal Unit Months (AUM’s) would be allowed if the range condition (through monitoring studies and analysis) supported it. What about big game? What comes first livestock or big game? A good portion of the PLI looks like it was written by the livestock industry.
• Motorized equipment can be used in Wilderness areas, NCA’s, and SCA’s for rescuing sick animals (read livestock), or for emergency feed.
• Livestock grazing is excluded from the plant and animal viability requirements of section 219 of title 36,United States Code of Federal Regulations. Why? What makes them so special?
• Access must be granted to private or state in-holdings within Wilderness areas (this also reads the same for NCA’s and SCA’s). Doesn’t a lot of this go against the current definition of a wilderness area? Why not change the current definition?
• Motorized access and road maintenance is allowed for the maintenance of any water resources located in Wilderness areas, NCA’s, or SCA’s.
• In-holdings or land within a designated area can only be acquired through donation or exchange. Why can’t they be purchased? Isn’t this the basis of our free market economy? A willing seller and a willing buyer.
• Any such land exchanges must be at the request of the state. What happens if I want to sell my in-holding, do I have to get permission from the state?
• Each NCA and SCA must have a management plan completed within two years of designation. The PLI calls for a fairly comprehensive management plan. Is additional funding allocated for each of these plans? Congress has severely cut the budgets of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture leaving no latitude to complete such actions without a restoration of funding. I feel Congress has cut these budgets with the specific intention of forcing a sell off of our public lands.
• It seems odd that Bighorn Sheep viability and management (specifically the Uinta’s) is mentioned in the PLI. I noticed that ranchers are mentioned first in this paragraph.
• Who oversees the commercial timber harvest on the SCA’s? USFS, state? If USFS how is this ever going to work? IF state what controls are there to prevent overharvest?
• Wild and Scenic River designation – they (intentionally) left out the main one which is the Green River below Flaming Gorge dam. This was because Daggett County pulled out of the PLI. I would guess that some of the other rivers make sense but they can’t match the beauty and value of the Green.
• In the Ashley Creek Recreational and Special Management Area (ACRSMA), it talks about utilizing commercial forest products (which I am guessing is timber harvest). It also calls for a plan that “promotes an economically sustainable commercial forest products industry”. A sustainable forest products industry is going to require constant planting and maintenance. Who is going to do this? Who is going to pay for it? Will there be additional funding provided? What’s to stop a business from clearcutting and leaving?
• Title I, Section 105 regarding the BCSNCA, talks about the mineral withdrawal, however the PLI gives a way out by stating “until otherwise determined by Congress”.
• Title II the cooperative management of Goblin Valley . Section 201– we’re just giving 9,994 acres of Federal land to the state without any assurances that it can’t be sold off or given away at a later date?
• Title III, Price Canyon State Forest – At least there’s an exchange in this one, but if it is business as usual, then the public will get the short end of the stick. i.e. is the land being exchanged worth anything? What is the purpose of a state forest? I can guess and probably so can you.
• Title IV – Deer Lodge Land Exchange. First of all why is a homeowners association even a part of the PLI? Who do they know? Is the land being exchanged of equal value? Doesn’t look that way. There isn’t enough detail on the map to make a determination. And most importantly – why?
• Title V – Scofield Land Transfers. This one is definitely “who you know”.
• Title VI – Land Conveyances.
o With all of the recreation area conveyances – what assurances are there that the county or municipality keeps them open to the public? I see nothing that guarantees the public will continue to have access to these areas in the future.
o Canyonlands Fields Airport, Huntington Airport, Cal Black Airport, Bluff Airport – why the heck are we giving away this land? Shouldn’t we get something in trade, something of equal value? I think we should.
o Why does Grand County want the Moab Tailings project property? Seems unusual that an entity would want such property. Unless, of course, that it has been remediated and restored at taxpayer expense into something desirable. Just like the airport properties, what do we get out of it?
o Emery County Sheriff Substation – why does a Sheriff’s substation need 634 acres? Am I missing something? Again, why are we not getting something in exchange?
o Monticello Water Storage and Treatment Plant – does the public normally give water districts the property for storage and treatment plants? Correct me if I am wrong but usually they are purchased from a seller or such and paid for with taxpayer money. Another giveaway!
o Hole in the rock trail – why does this need to be given to the county. Wouldn’t Utah State Parks be a better beneficiary?
o With the Park City conveyances – who holds these? What public right guarantees are there? Why does Emery County get 634 acres for a substation and there is only 3.5 acres for open space by Park City?
o Dugout Ranch, Lisbon Valley, Wellington, and Range Creek – why are we giving this to the University of Utah for research? What are they researching? If this is like Range Creek it will be closed to public access. What do we, the public, get?
o Ashley Spring Zone – If this is already Federal land, why does it need to be given to the county for “protection”? Will it be open space in perpetuity?
o Seep Ridge Utility Corridor – Isn’t there already a corridor on state (SITLA) lands? Why does this need to be given to the state?
o Emery Information Center – 80 acres? Really? For an information and visitor center talking about public lands. You have got to be kidding. I can see an acre or maybe two, but 80?

• Title VII – Land Disposals. WTH? What purpose does a good ole giveaway serve? How does it benefit me, the public? What do we get in return?
• Title XI – Long Term Energy Development Certainty.
o So if a lease has to be approved within 60 days (or it automatically becomes approved), why not stipulate that exploration or development has to occur within the same time frame? Rush to approve the lease and then the lessee can take up to 10 years to do anything. I say move it on, if they can’t prove up within 60 days, then it comes up for sale again. After all isn’t this all about money? Get the well in soon so that everyone can start collecting royalties and if that doesn’t happen we at least get some revenue for another sale of the same lease. Why not?
o No adherence to the BLM planning? Who oversees what’s going on? Ah, the county or the state….
o Limitation on lease restrictions for wildlife shall pertain only to specific wildlife laws. What are the specific wildlife laws mentioned? Who gets to comment?
o Is mitigation after a development ends eliminated? I can’t see where this is addressed. We already see many companies “walking away” from sites and then leaving the public to pay for cleanup and restoration.

• Title XII – Long-Term Travel Management Certainty. What the heck is this entire section about? They can have the roads as outlined and they can ask for more?
• Title XIII – Long Term Land Use Certainty. The PLI discussion draft ends here. What is this section going to contain? It must be waiting for whatever beneficiary to write it.

The PLI does contain a few good items that I could support, but when weighed with the massive amounts of bad, I cannot in any way support this draft. Almost certainly, the final bill version will seek to take away more from the public and give it to special interests, counties, and those who know the bill sponsors. It is the “camel’s nose under the tent”, if this bill becomes law, will this be the end of such land grabs or just the start?

Any Utahn who loves and treasures our wonderful outdoors should oppose this bill and any others that seek to take away from us and give to others, whether it is the state, a county, an industry, or an individual.

If Representatives Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz are really willing to do something good for Utah and its citizens, then they should restore funding to the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. They should seek to change those laws and rules which stifle the correct management of our outdoors, work within the existing framework of what we have. Regardless of what they and others say, our Federal public lands do work for Utah, they do provide economic benefits and aesthetic benefits, they make our quality of life better for us and all that visit. Minor tweaks are what’s needed, not a complete overhaul. “You don’t rebuild the engine if all that is wrong is the turn signal bulb”!!

01/22/2016

Here's a video presentation on some of Utah's wonderful places and a brief "why" they should NOT be given to the state. No audio. https://youtu.be/2BaMPieK4N4

Here's a short video describing why we shouldn't transfer OUR Federal public lands to the state. No sound but hopefully the slides will convey the message.

08/25/2015

Who's behind these efforts, and what do they mean for our public access to hike, climb, paddle, ski, bike, and explore?

06/25/2015

Hunters like Randy Newberg are standing up to state lawmakers in the West as they push to gain control of public lands.

06/19/2015

The federal government owns large chunks of the West. It owns 65 percent of Utah, 69 percent of Alaska and 83 percent of Nevada. Some Westerners see unfairness in that. They should not. Here's why...