of Wyoming. And yet today we are sort of led to believe that somehow 

 that bill was forced down our throats. And not only that, but one reason 

 why BLM has a history of weak management was that same western 

 congressional district. There was a very serious attempt to take over the 

 lands. The last serious attempt was in the 1940's. It was led by a 

 senator from Nevada and a result of that was the grazing service the 

 predecessors of BLM lost half of its personnel and appropriations. And 

 Senator McCharen said that's the way he wanted the agency. He wanted it 

 weak enough where it didn't get in anybody's way, but still tunneled 

 enough money through the agency for range improvements to provide 

 improvements for the western stockmen. 



There are other examples of western influence over the public lands. 

 The Secretary of the Interior is generally earmarked as a presidential 

 appointment reserved for the westerners. And I well remember when 

 Nixon appointed Roger C.B. Norton, who was from the East, how upset 

 westerners were that the Secretary of the Interior was not a westerner. 

 We hear how somehow there are these eastern bureaucrats and yet the top 

 school that has provided land managers in the BLM, according to a survey 

 I did, are graduates of Utah State University. The next highest school is 

 Montana State. So the personnel are from the West. The Secretary of the 

 Interior is from the West and the legislation that has been created, 

 supported and pushed through congress is from westerners. 



Another argument the Sagebrush Rebellion people have is that 

 somehow they have this moral right to the land. Or, it's sometimes 

 argued, that it is the state's right. But behind that is still special 

 interest groups, and that was the case in the 1920's, the 1930's and the 

 1940's. One of the most interesting things to me was Congressman 

 Astenalls' public lands commission. As you know, that was the fourth 

 public land commission. The third one was called the Garfield Commission 

 in the 1920's. It was Hoover's contribution to the public lands. As you 

 might expect, Hoover's commission recommended turning the lands over to 

 the states and there was a great deal of sympathy for that and there were 

 hearings held, one of the hearings that I enjoyed, the Governor of Utah, 

 in a classic quote, said something to the effect that "what do we want with 

 anymore of this precious desert heritage?" He said, "We have millions of 

 acres of it that we can't sell and we can't earn any money from and why 

 do we want any more?" Well, these same groups want it now simply 

 because of the energy resources. They are now truly precious heritage, 

 and they want them. 



The other thing that I think is interesting to look at with those who 

 argue for this sort of moral argument is "Let's look at the leaders of the 

 Sagebrush Rebellion." I think the leading spokesman in Utah would be Cal 

 Black, who has a logging background. The leading spokesman in Nevada 

 is a stockman. In Idaho it's a man who has a sawmill. Do these people 

 have any records of the public interest in the past? Or have they 

 represented only their private interests? Only their private economic 

 interests have they ever looked after. What has been their role in 

 conservattion? Or in the multiple use of natural resources? They have no 

 record in that area. They have a record of supporting self -centered, 

 personal, economic interests in these lands. I believe their intent is quite 



