Land ownership timeline? (BLM to private)

JakeC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
497
Location
North Utah
I'm not finding much luck yet looking this up, but does anyone know of a relatively quick way to tell when BLM land was transferred to private? While looking at Onx for another reason, I noticed that a relatively popular, accessible chukar/shooting/scenic area I frequent is now private. I don't know why I want to know when, it's not going to change anything, but I'm just a little chapped. Especially because I was there so recently using OnX to find my sunglasses, lol.

Anyway, it's exasperating. Another unique location has been transferred from public ownership to a private entity. Along with the guzzlers and the roads built by the public. Even more cynically: this purchase happens to coincide with an increase on reporting on the magnesium factory bordering this parcel, and that reporting that is being led by a news organization owned by the same private entity as the land purchase. Is the plant bad? Oh yes. But it's been a menace for decades and suddenly we're seeing it in the news and public discussion at the same time that developers are almost out of especially scenic property to develop near SLC.

I'm no anti-capitalist, but it drives me deeply crazy that we have politicians running on the merits of "transferring of land from bureaucrats to local management" (actual current political ad) when all that means is "taking land away from the local users and letting the wealthy own it."
 
The only time I've seen BLM transferred is to BIA, never to a private person/company.

I have seen USFS go to private, those are usually landlocked small parcels inside of private land already.
It is a major part of life here in Utah. For good and ill. Many thousands of acres a year. Very rarely the grab is so egregious that people get annoyed and put a stop to houses being built on a destination waterfall hike for example, but usually it's without question. Randy Newburg had a good episode a long time ago about how Utah has specialized in a variety of schemes to get federal land privatized. Or into state trust which is just a pitstop in many cases. Locally it's lauded as a sort of Robin hood activity, even though it's literally, hilariously, the opposite. It's touchy. People need a place to live and income is a good thing and a church is allowed to invest its money in newspapers and real estate, but I find it personally aggravating that it's not a more open process with more raodblocks. The things that make it good for the public are probably exactly why it's not public anymore.
Probably someone connected....the average joe has zero chance. Do an online tax map search if your state offers it.
Oh the owner is quite well known, connected is a mild way of putting it.
 
Most of the western Republican politicians are in favor of taking as much federal land as possible and transferring it to state ownership, where they can then sell it off to the highest bidder(s). Your boy Chaffetz there in UT was a big voice for it back in his day as a state representative. It's maddening for sure. I digress here a little, but it's pretty interesting how neither side really supports us public land hunters. On the left, many of them want to take guns away and some would like to stop hunting altogether. On the right, they'd just as soon sell every inch of public land to private ownership for development and/or extraction, or whatever else can make money for a corporation....

But to your original, question, I don't know how to research that through any of the apps or websites. I'd bet someone on here does though....
 
Most of the western Republican politicians are in favor of taking as much federal land as possible and transferring it to state ownership, where they can then sell it off to the highest bidder(s). Your boy Chaffetz there in UT was a big voice for it back in his day as a state representative. It's maddening for sure. I digress here a little, but it's pretty interesting how neither side really supports us public land hunters. On the left, many of them want to take guns away and some would like to stop hunting altogether. On the right, they'd just as soon sell every inch of public land to private ownership for development and/or extraction, or whatever else can make money for a corporation....

But to your original, question, I don't know how to research that through any of the apps or websites. I'd bet someone on here does though....
You got that right. Yeah, I feel differently than most folks on here on a lot of details, but I understand the conservative point of view, and used to live by only that. But I don't know what's conservative about getting the state involved with taking resources from the commons and giving it to the wealthy. But as you note, correctly, the compliant party line here in Utah is that unsold land is wasted land. Salt lake water is wasted water. Irrigation water is wasted water. Green cropland is wasted land, etc. Dedicated, permanent open spaces are "locked up" lands. It's not just a rightwing issue, big city mayors line up to gift team owners like the 3 wise men every year.

You make a really good point about the dual assault, I was just talking to my gf about it in the context of the wolf issue: It's hard to argue that hunting and public land isn't under attack from both sides right now. One type of person wants to monetize every stitch of resource and recreation, another wants to make sure everyone HAS to live their life the way THEY live their lives. Wolf reintroduction is largely being driven by people who are pleased to be able to force a view, any view, on the rurals, and by people who are lagely antagonistic to hunting. They don't care about wolves, they're not going to check on Idaho any more than they'll check on Colorado. Both sides will happily resort to made up values and made up scientific consensus to get their way. I was actually talking to a European who was bragging that C+R fishing has been banned in multiple countries. But they can fish for food because that's causing "necessary" pain. I told him that's a made up middle ground, a layover between having fishing and banning all of it. Fishing for food isn't necessary anywhere in the developed nations that have banned catch and release. It's just a way to temporarily satisfy crybabies who pretend to care about fish pain because it allows them to justify telling others what to do.
 
Well there is a difference between land ownership and land use.
For example, mining claims have typically been allowed on public lands. At a time when elements for semiconductors, rare earth magnets and similar that are critical for military and industrial supply chain security, these mining claims have been banned by the feds - even after approval from the states. Other countries, especially adversarial ones with far fewer or even zero environmental safeguards have already developed monopolies both domestically and in third world countries.
Oil and gas leases have also been essentially shut off nationwide, resulting in our dependence on hostile nations for fuel. At the same time our strategic petroleum reserve has been bled down to nothing in order to somewhat stem the inevitable price increases in an effort to buy votes at the expense of our security.
At the same time the Chinese have been fishing illegally wherever they can get away with it, meanwhile bullying small countries out of their own territorial waters with naval vessels.
Forestry management in certain states has also been an unmitigated disaster. Banning selective logging and controlled burns in the name of ecology or something results in vast amounts of undergrowth and dense timber and brush. Then when lightning or powerlines inevitably cause fires, they burn uncontrollably and so hot that they burn down even to the roots. Then when it rains there are rock and mudslides that wipe out roads, houses and etc. leaving a wasteland with no habitat for wildlife. In places like Europe and Japan they have managed the forests for centuries, unlike our modern 'enlightened' eco 'scientists'.
They really believe that humans are an invasive species to be eradicated whilst protecting endangered cockroaches or whatever.
On the other hand the number of cattle allowed to graze on BLM and National Forest lands is obscene, and, coincidentally, profitable. You can't even pitch a tent in most meadows without clearing half a dozen cow pies. The numbers must be reduced substantially IMHO.
 
Check something other than Onx. It's often wrong. You can look up the parcel on the county auditor's website and see who owns it along with when any transfers of ownership occurred.
Yes, maybe visit county assessor/auditor to do some research. In person or online if they support that. You can also pay a fee to a Title Company for a: "Chain of Title".
 
Check something other than Onx. It's often wrong. You can look up the parcel on the county auditor's website and see who owns it along with when any transfers of ownership occurred.
It's often not up to date, but oddly enough the house I rent was sold and the new owner was updated on Onx in a few days. Not relevant, just funny
 
"… On the other hand the number of cattle allowed to graze on BLM and National Forest lands is obscene, … ."

Hi, Noobie,

Is that everywhere in the Nation, or only in Utah? (Which seems to be the primary state referred to by the author in this thread.)

I'm trying to understand what you mean.

May I inquire, what source did you read that produces the data that makes one use the word "obscene" to describe cattle numbers on BLM and Forest Service land?

I mean, how many AUMs (Animal Unit Months) are acceptable on public land and at what point do they become extreme and surpass that to become "obscene"?

(https://wyoextension.org/publications/html/B1320/)

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. It is obvious that you care deeply about the number of cattle on public land.

I'm pretty sure BLM and the Forest Service adhere to historic policies that will not destroy the habitat.

Is it the mere presence of or is it an abundance of cow patties that makes you use the word "obscene"? I get it. Lots of animals in proximity can create a mountain of manure.

I am not a rancher nor a farmer. I know many of both.
They feed us all. If we eat anything, it likely came from a farmer or rancher, except probably bugs. I don't know any bug farmers..

I agree with the rest of your post.

John
 
Last edited:
Hi, Noobie,

Is that everywhere in the Nation, or only in Utah? (Which seems to be the primary state referred to by the author in this thread.)

I'm trying to understand what you mean.

May I inquire, what source did you read that produces the data that makes one use the word "obscene" to describe cattle numbers on BLM and Forest Service land?

I mean, how many AUMs (Animal Unit Months) are acceptable on public land and at what point do they become extreme and surpass that to become "obscene"?

(https://wyoextension.org/publications/html/B1320/)

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. It is obvious that you care deeply about the number of cattle on public land.

I'm pretty sure BLM and the Forest Service adhere to historic policies that will not destroy the habitat.

Is it the mere presence of or is it an abundance of cow patties that makes you use the word "obscene"? I get it. Lots of animals in proximity can create a mountain of manure.

I am not a rancher nor a farmer. I know many of both.
They feed us all. If we eat anything, it likely came from a farmer or rancher, except probably bugs. I don't know any bug farmers..

I agree with the rest of your post.

John
Actually this was during elk scouting/hunting in the black hills of South Dakota. We had to plow the truck thru herds of cattle just getting to some hunt areas. Then we had to deal with cattle clogging up the ridgetops and meadows whilst hiking. They were everywhere, and drving the elk off prime feeding areas and watering holes.
There also is a landowner that owns literally a couple hundred yards of road blocking the ONLY public access to 20 or 30 miles of dirt roads into prime elk and deer habitat. BTW, the game wardens are granted access, and yeah, I got permission as well, but it is closed to the general public. I think eminent domain should be used for an easement.
Another guy in a different part of the forest blocks access from one end of prime hunting areas, but runs cattle there on public land. We wound up against his private property in the middle of the night and faced a treacherous backtrack uphill in the mud to get out of there. Met him personally and yet he refused to let us cross. He should be required to grant access in order to run cattle.
I'm all for farming and ranching for food and beef. Those conducting 'for profit' grazing etc. on public land, however, should pay their fair share and not monopolize the resources, and be limited in the number of cattle per acre. And yes, on every trip, we literally had to drive miles and miles to scout meadows for a place to pitch a small tent, and still had to clear the cowpies.
 
Top