values and uses of limited pieces of geography. And it represents, among 

 other things the changes that have occured as the old West has given way 

 to the largely urban, sunbelt booming, new West. 



And for similar reasons the Sagebrush Rebellion is a Federal versus 

 State issue only in a general way, because regardless of who is in charge, 

 the conflicting demands will exist nevertheless. The competing interests 

 BLM seeks to balance at the national level exist just as strongly at the 

 State and even local level. The issues will not go away with a change in 

 ownership. 



That is why I have said repeatedly that the question is not whether 

 the States are capable of managing the resources of the public lands. With 

 time, money, people and an honest commitment to multiple use, they could. 

 That's not the issue. The fact is that these lands aren't theirs 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. The real question is whether State 

 managment is in the best interests of the West and the Nation as a whole, 

 and I am confident that the answer is no. 



If we started from scratch again to set out the criteria for developing 

 effective public land policy we would provide for: 



land disposal for growing communities; 



land for irrigated agriculture (and the conflict won't be whether 

 there is enough land but to what uses limited water will be assigned); 



land and resources for energy development; 



food production (on arid lands, livestock production); 



timber production; 



wildlife habitat maintenance; 



outdoor enjoyment, whether ORV or wilderness, with special reference 

 to urban needs; 



protection of archaeological and cultural values; 



and so forth. 



In short, a fresh look at policy for managing these lands would 

 produce the multiple-use, sustained-yield policies FLPMA provides for. 

 And we would soon conclude that, in the interest of national equity, 

 balance among conflicting uses in the West, balance between western and 

 national interests that large-scale public ownership could be the best basis 

 for management. 



To the extent that the Sagebrush Rebellion has coalesced a number of 

 western interests with strong points of view abot how public lands ought 

 to be managed, I think it's productive. We should emphasize, however. 



