THE SAGEBRUSH REBELLION: WHAT IT IS, 

 WHAT IT ISN'T, AND WHERE IT'S GONE 



"The fact is that these lands aren't their's to manage. They belong 

 to all of us. We all pay for their management and we all benefit from 

 their use, though westerners benefit more than the rest simply 

 because they're there." 



FRANK GREGG : So much dust has been kicked up about the "Sagebrush 

 Rebellion" lately that it's hard to see clearly anymore what it is and what 

 it isn't. I'd like to spend some time today clearing the air. 



What the Sagebrush Rebellion \s, is three distinct strategies for 

 changing the management of public lands. 



First, it is legal strategy, initiated by the State of Nevada, which 

 asserts jurisdiction over the unappropriated, unreserved Federal lands 

 managed by BLM. It is based in large part on the argument that because 

 so much of the State is in Federal ownership--some 87 percent--the State 

 is not on an "equal footing" with the eastern States. The State says they 

 will bring suit soon. The legal issue will, no doubt, have to be resolved 

 in the Supreme Court. 



Second, the Sagebrush Rebellion is a legislative strategy, embodied in 

 Senator Orrin Hatch's legislation introduced in the Congress this year in 

 order to precipitate a Congressional decision to transfer jurisdiction of 

 both the BLM and Forest Service lands to the States. No hearings have 

 been held on the bill or on its companion in the House introduced by 

 Congressman Santini. Without arguing the reasons in detail, I don't think 

 it's likely that the Congress will divest itself and the American people of 

 the tremendous array of resources represented on the public lands and the 

 National Forests. 



One would suspect that at some point the National Forests would be 

 dropped as an apparent "compromise," reducing the proposed transfer to 

 lands under BLM jurisdiction. 



