Basically, our public lands represent a shared heritage--2.7 acres for 

 every citizen in this nation and in California we have 22,000,000 people, 

 and nearly half a million more every year. 



Times are changing and the Sagebrush Rebellion, to me, is a 

 wonderful opportunity to make that change as constructively as possible. 

 I think one of the best arguments against the Sagebrush Rebellion was 

 described by my friend, Ted Trueblood, in a recent article titled "They 

 Are Trying to Steal Your Lands". The title says enough. To me the 

 rebellion presents a useful opportunity for creative conflict which can 

 bring about awareness in the urban voter block faster, so that maybe we 

 will be able to get a grip on the quality of this place and not let it 

 continue to be ruined as it has been ruined for the last 100 years. 



To me, as a reality, the Sagebrush Rebellion is dead because along 

 with each of you and everybody else in the country, I have a shared 

 heritage in our public lands, I can go hunting on national forests or BLM 

 rangelands. In fact, that's the only place that I can go hunting for deer 

 in California. But the minute these lands are turned over to somebody 

 else, a "No Trespassing" sign will go up and the State's record is not 

 very good in holding onto its lands. In fact, our State Lands Commission 

 still hasn't surveyed all its holdings, and that situation is kept that way 

 by the special interest that Mr. Shanks described. They make sure it 

 doesn't happen. 



I'm an urban dweller, and the majority of Montanas, I presume, are 

 urban dwellers as well, and I'm sure they don't want "No Trespassing" 

 signs either. A major thing planners of the Sagebrush Rebellion neglected 

 to explain was the loss revenue that counties now receive from federal 

 agencies in lieu of taxes. I had the pleasure of challenging the so-called 

 father of the Sagebrush Rebellion in a debate recently, and I brought up 

 this revenue loss. Following the debate, I received a number of telephone 

 calls and letters from county officials in Nevada asking about the loss of 

 revenue. One letter in particular from Nevada's Douglas County pointed 

 out that when the Sagebrush Rebellion was promoted nobody had told them 

 they would lose that revenue. So Douglas County sent a letter to the 

 person I was debating saying, "We got $100,000 last year from the Federal 

 Government, and you don't have any plans to come up with a similar 

 amount if Nevada gets the land back." And so, even within Nevada the 

 rebellion is losing credibility. 



But a more important issue than who owns these lands is how well 

 they are managed. Basically and philosophically, I strongly believe that 

 the nation, in order to grow and obtain strength that we enjoy today had 

 to exploit our resources. Now, however, we have reached an era of 

 limits. We know now that the resources that we use are finite. There is 

 no unlimited supply of anything. In California we are certainly finding 

 that out the hard way every week, and, as I recall, nationally, there's 

 something like 14 important minerals that we are importing a major portion 

 of. For instance, we now import 90 percent of the cobalt we use. 

 Historically, civilizations which continue that pattern don't continue very 

 long. The danger sign is when you are willing to cash in more and more 

 to continue past traditions, not only of your dollar resources, but when 



