Why don't they keep the land as an undeveloped green-belt property? Keep some kind of greenery in the lives of the human occupants in the newighborhood. Many home buyers probably bought homes surrounding the area because it could not be developed as long as it belong to the DWR. It would seem wiser to keep it for DWR use than sell it and pay many millions of dollars to replace it. In hindsight but for future causes, perhaps we should have some legislation to restrict developement, with no waivers, of lands surrounding wild life preserves. Developers purposely encroch developement on surrounding land to drive out wildlife to render these preserves useles in their purpose then snap it up when they have accomplished the destruction of wildlife in the habitat. It's long range planning by developers and the DWR should do the same and retain the land with no developement. It was set aside in good faith for the people and it should remain that way, and keep out motorized vehicles in the preserve.

Very good points, you should present them to DWR

Good points, however they don't really apply to this land. It was purchased with hunter and fishermen's dollars to be used to promote those sports. If development has rendered these areas useless to these sportsmen, trading them or selling them to help purchase better wildlife lands makes perfect sense.

Sportsman, you are probably correct about the orginial purchase amount coming from license sales, but now a good deal of funding comes from taxes, fees, and donations on "nonconsumpitive" wildlife. In 2006 Fishing in Utah generated about $400 million, Hunting about 300 million, and "Wildlife Watching" generated 550 million. I don't claim the acreage will be a prime bird watching site, but perhaps the DWR should consider Bob Gs points. If you are really interested I'll try to dig up the web address for these numbers