The Sagebrush Rebellion

[cali]

It never really ended. In order to understand the standoff at Malheur, a little history helps:

The Sagebrush Rebellion was a movement during the 1970s and 1980s that sought major changes to federal land control, use and disposal policy in the American West where, in 13 western states, federal land holdings include between 20% and 85% of a state's area.[1][2] Notably, supporters of this movement wanted more state and local control over these lands, if not outright transfer of them to state and local authorities and/or privatization. As much of the land in question is sagebrush steppe, supporters adopted the name Sagebrush Rebellion. The sentiment survives into the 21st century with pressure from some individual citizens, politicians, and organized groups especially with respect to livestock grazing, mineral extraction, and other economic development policy for these lands.


<snip>
Newly elected Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) joined in land transfer legislation efforts in 1977, after loud complaints from ranchers and oilmen from Utah, coupled with strong support from several Utah county governments. By late 1979, Hatch was the one legislator most interested in land transfers. He sought to introduce a transfer bill that would get hearings and potential action. Upon advice of members of the Utah Wilderness Commission, appointed by Utah Governor Scott Matheson, Hatch agreed to leave National Parks and National Monuments in federal hands, and he drafted a bill that would allow states to apply for control over selected parcels. With 16 cosponsors, he introduced the bill in 1979,[9][10] and again in 1981. Partly because Hatch's bill dealt with major objections to previous bills, news outlets for the first time covered the bill as if it had a serious chance of passing. This provided a huge morale boost to long-aggrieved public lands users, other than conservationists, and started a two-year newspaper, radio, and television fight for the legislation.

Ultimately, Hatch's bill got little more than press attention. The election of Ronald Reagan as president put a friend to the Sagebrush Rebels in the White House, James G. Watt, and his appointees slowed or closed down wilderness designation legislation. By Reagan's second term, the Sagebrush Rebellion was back to simmering on the back burner of federal land management agencies.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_Rebellion

Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act

The State of Utah passed legislation in 2012—the Utah Transfer of Public Lands Act—to require the Federal government to grant the majority of federal land in the state back to the state of Utah after 2014, as promised to the State in the Utah Enabling Act of 1894.[1]

<snip>
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Transfer_of_Public_Lands_Act

This is an excellent article in today's NYT by a professor of environmental history:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/opinion/in-oregon-myth-mixes-with-anger.html

[lovemydog]

1. k & r for history!

Thanks.

[struggle4progress]

2. Here's what the Enabling Act of July 16, 1894 actually says:

... SEC. 3 ... Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof ... and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States ...

http://archives.utah.gov/research/exhibits/Statehood/1894text.htm

[Ford_Prefect]

3. The Times among others often leave out Koch brothers funding and influence

The early days of Sagebrush Reagan support were largely funded by Koch money. Later and recent movements on behalf of divesting Federal lands to state and private ownership are almost entirely a Koch paid device on behalf of mining, oil, gas and timber industries who desire open lands with no federal fees or rules to limit development or environmental impact.

The MSM frequently treats references to Koch influence as conspiracy theory like they do UFO reports. The effect is to amplify the pretense that this is a "home grown" movement. There are indeed local interests involved but the real powers behind it are driven by the big money. The story often told is that local jobs will flourish when the timber, oil and mineral wealth can be gotten out without pesky BLM and Forestry management stifling business and wasting productive land. The other myth is that states and counties can better manage the land and prevent forest fires than "inefficient and wasteful" government bureaucracy does.

I have seen those lies and others proposed over and over by the same well financed exploiters in western Montana, Idaho and eastern Washington over the last 30 years.

[2naSalit]

4. ^^^THIS^^^!!!

[2naSalit]

5. K&R