HikeArizona.COM

This is outrageous, it really has me hopping. I am going to copy what I just read in the most recent Southern Arizona Hiking Club (SAHC) bulletin. Pay special attention to where I have used bold lettering:

"In the past SAHC purchased an annual State Trust Land club permit for $50 which covered all SAHC hikes and hikers for the year. The State Land Dept. has changed its permitting process and our club annual permit will not be renewed when it expires in April 2009. Last August the State Land Dept. initiated a new fee schedule for all recreational use of State Trust Land. The impact on SAHC of the new fee schedule is as follows:

To hike on State Trust Land:
1. All hikers will now have to have an individual permit good for one year and FOR A MAXIMUM OF 14 DAYS OF USE WITHIN THAT YEAR AT THE COST OF $50 PER PERMIT.

2. For a group event (defined as 12-50 hikers) an additional group permit will be required, at $50. THIS PERMIT CAN TAKE UP TO 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN. THIS MEANS THAT ON A HIKE WITH MORE THAN 12 HIKERS, EACH ONE WILL HAVE TO HAVE HIS/HER OWN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT AS WELL AS THE GUIDE OBTAINING A SEPARATE GROUP EVENT PERMIT.

SAHC and other hiking clubs have contacted the State Land Dept. asking for relief from the new fee schedule. No exceptions or changes to the fees are being allowed. These new fees affect all recreational users.

The Arizona State Land Dept. has implemented a Internet based mapping service. You can find it at land.state.az.us"

End of SAHC bulletin quote.

It beats me how they are going to afford to ENFORCE this new ruling. I mean, aren't cops and their vehicles kind of expensive? To actually enforce the ruling I would think the State would have to pay more than they are going to get back in fees.

I also think it's one example of how one group ruins it for everyone else. And of course I am talking about ATVers. Irresponsible ATVers have caused huge damage on State Lands, and it's understandable that the State is concerned about this. But to make us all pay equally, when we didn't cause equal damage is unfair.

I think they need to have an IQ and ethics test before anyone can use state lands. That would get rid of most of the off-roaders, because a lot of them still think it's ok to litter and shoot up saguaros, and ride on hiking trails, and ride off established routes.

Sounds like I need to reevaluate my plans for hiking on STL this spring. Crappy. Hmm...

Good God! That is ridiculous! Add to that the fact that there is hardly any State Trust Land that is worth seeing. Why would anyone want to pay $50 for a permit?

Just do what everyone else does ( or maybe it's just me), just go without a permit. The State Land Dept is too understaffed to have someone patrolling. I've never seen any kind of enforcement at any State Trust Land. I don't usually advocate breaking the law (not during the week anyway), but anyone who pays this fee is a sucker! The money might be used to rehabilitate quadriplegic kittens; I don't care, it's still ridiculous!

I work with the State Land department from time to time. Last I heard, they had VERY few enforcement officers, and those ususally were kept at task preventing things like illegal grazing, developing and large-scale abuses (such as unofficial/unapproved races and trail blazing). However, local law enforcement (county and city) can issue the citation if you're caught on the land. Usually, however, these officials typically keep their involvement down to preventing unauthorized shooting, dumping or the like - and would rarely be found off the roads.

I recommend you buy a hunting/fishing license. That way the (evil) State Land department doesn't get the additional revenue stream they're looking for, your money goes to promoting responsible management of the state's wildlife and you have access to State Land pretty much whenever you want. At $32per, it's also a deal. Then you just need to carry your sling and tell the friendly ranger you plan on bagging some rabbits along the way...

Oh, I didn't realize that the hunting license allowed unpermitted access to STL. That's pretty cool!

It seems to me that we need to consider a group of us who are willing to take turns representing our community to these state people making these decisions. Otherwise with all the budget stuff we're going to get run over, without hardly a peep. One minute it's threatening 8 parks closing, then 11, ten $50 state land permits and limiting time on them to 14 days a year?! Where will it stop? I'm concerned it won't...

Any thoughts on this?

I've only seen somebody checking for state trust land permits one time in my life. It was in the flats a few miles south of Florence Junction off of AZ-79, probably 8-10 years ago. I think there was some kind of unofficial OHV event going on in there, and there was a ranger at one of the access gates. I think at least 75% of people who use STL don't realize that a permit and fee are required.

I've only ever seen a patrol on state land once and the guy sped past me going about 80MPH on an old dirt road, on his cell phone, and all but gave me the finger as he shrouded me in dust. I actually had to stop and wait for the dust he was kicking up to dissipate to drive safely. His truck said: "Arizona Ranger" and after trying for about three hours to find his supervisor after no state office would claim him, I gave up.

dshillis wrote:It seems to me that we need to consider a group of us who are willing to take turns representing our community to these state people making these decisions. Otherwise with all the budget stuff we're going to get run over, without hardly a peep. One minute it's threatening 8 parks closing, then 11, ten $50 state land permits and limiting time on them to 14 days a year?! Where will it stop? I'm concerned it won't...

Any thoughts on this?

The news this morning just said that the state will be getting an additional $1B in "discretionary funds" that have some strings attached, but that Brewer can basically allocate. What we need to do is see to it that the school districts and parks get their funding back and her cronies don't get their pockets lined. Mark my words, if she gets a chance, she'll pour all of it into development citing the need to create jobs!!

Jeff MacE wrote:I've only ever seen a patrol on state land once and the guy sped past me going about 80MPH on an old dirt road, on his cell phone, and all but gave me the finger as he shrouded me in dust. I actually had to stop and wait for the dust he was kicking up to dissipate to drive safely. His truck said: "Arizona Ranger" and after trying for about three hours to find his supervisor after no state office would claim him, I gave up.

Arizona Rangers aren't LEOs, they're more like informal posse-as-needed type guys who have other 9-5 jobs. He was probably out there 4-wheeling for fun.

[quote="writelots"]I work with the State Land department from time to time. Last I heard, they had VERY few enforcement officers, and those ususally were kept at task preventing things like illegal grazing, developing and large-scale abuses (such as unofficial/unapproved races and trail blazing). However, local law enforcement (county and city) can issue the citation if you're caught on the land.

I hiked with an X State Land Trust district manager on land trust land and he did not have a permit. He told me in 2008 that there were only two enforcement officers for the whole state and as 'writelots' states they are after the big abusers. He was under the impression that if we did come across an enforcement officer while on a hike, they would just say 'have a nice day'. I usually follow the law, but don't buy this permit any longer.

I'm not going to buy it either. I live in the White Mtns. most of the year, and there would be little enforcement on the trust lands around Springerville. There is a very large area of it, but I'm sure enforcement is pretty much non existent.

Here in Yuma there is a lot of trust land that's right next to developments, and you do see people out there walking their dogs, etc. because they live right next to it, so why wouldn't they? The 14 day rule is the biggie, if you ask me. The permit has been required for a long time, but not the 14 day deal.

PageRob wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that the hunting license allowed unpermitted access to STL. That's pretty cool!

I was thinking of a hunting or fishing license as alternative also. If I'm stopped without a rifle, I'll just say that I was scouting this time. If I'm stopped somewhere without a fishing pole where there is no water I'll say that I heard there was a great fishing hole but someone must have played me for a fool. I'll just make sure I have a fishing hat on with some flies attached. One look at the hat and they will probably believe me.

PageRob wrote:

Jeff MacE wrote:I've only ever seen a patrol on state land once and the guy sped past me going about 80MPH on an old dirt road, on his cell phone, and all but gave me the finger as he shrouded me in dust. I actually had to stop and wait for the dust he was kicking up to dissipate to drive safely. His truck said: "Arizona Ranger" and after trying for about three hours to find his supervisor after no state office would claim him, I gave up.

Arizona Rangers aren't LEOs, they're more like informal posse-as-needed type guys who have other 9-5 jobs. He was probably out there 4-wheeling for fun.

Good to know. His truck had a state government plate and red and blue lights. What a miserable cowboy...

Al_HikesAZ wrote:

PageRob wrote:Oh, I didn't realize that the hunting license allowed unpermitted access to STL. That's pretty cool!

I was thinking of a hunting or fishing license as alternative also. If I'm stopped without a rifle, I'll just say that I was scouting this time. If I'm stopped somewhere without a fishing pole where there is no water I'll say that I heard there was a great fishing hole but someone must have played me for a fool. I'll just make sure I have a fishing hat on with some flies attached. One look at the hat and they will probably believe me.

Wear Spandex and tell them you're "Fishing for babes"...they'll leave you alone, for sure!

The 14 day limit is only for camping. From my permit: "Camping (restricted to no more than 14 days per year). It's intent is to control all the squatters who park their RV's on state land during the winter. There's no way anyone would know if you camp overnight here and there at various times during the year that added up to more than 14 days.

When you're hiking on STL, I don't think there's any chance of getting a citation.
Driving on STL has a higher chance of a citation this year. Enforcement officers were supposed to be hired to enforce the new licensing rules for Quads.

The state trust lands is a joke. Its not anything close to being a preservation organization. Its a bank account where the state sells a section or two off every so often to make money. The NAU forestry school has their school forest on trust lands and they entered into a 100 year agreement with the STL about 10 years ago. There is a small fear that in 90 years they will lose the forest because its more valuable for development. I remember hearing that a part of the forest was supposed to be auctioned off several years before the agreement was reached. There was enough outcry that it didn't happen, but if it had because of its location it would have gone for McMansions in the middle of other National Forest Sections.

I wouldn't say state trust lands are a joke. They're not intended to be preserved. Their intent is actually to SELL for profit (and subsequently development). Scottsdale and Cave Creek have successfully purchased parcels of state trust lands with the intent to preserve them, but in order to do so, they must meet the qualifications set forth in law regarding securing the highest possible value for the land (which means bidding against developers). Municipalities can rarely afford the price of STL versus developers. But that was actually the point. All the money earned from STL sales is mandatorily funneled into education.

Like so many government programs, the original intent was quite pure. But the actual application of it no longer works quite the way the original concept was envisioned.

chumley wrote:I wouldn't say state trust lands are a joke. They're not intended to be preserved. Their intent is actually to SELL for profit (and subsequently development). Scottsdale and Cave Creek have successfully purchased parcels of state trust lands with the intent to preserve them, but in order to do so, they must meet the qualifications set forth in law regarding securing the highest possible value for the land (which means bidding against developers). Municipalities can rarely afford the price of STL versus developers. But that was actually the point. All the money earned from STL sales is mandatorily funneled into education.

Like so many government programs, the original intent was quite pure. But the actual application of it no longer works quite the way the original concept was envisioned.

Exactly...I think it needs to be revisited. STL frequently sells for a song when compared to what a private party would want for the same land in such a sale...

I guess I'm just a little old fashioned. From where I came from, NJ, FL, VA, state lands were about preservation or recreation, not real estate development and income. They can be used as they are in the mean time, but It's not their intended end use, and I as a leftist nut don't like it.