OCR Text |
Show XT113 lalSpOrt by SenatorOrrin Hat Sagebrush Rebellion still needed For example, states would be required to establish governing gov-erning boards and procedures pro-cedures before they could apply for the transfer of lanid. The bill also precludes tide transfer of areas including national parks, wildlife sanctuaries san-ctuaries and Indian reservations reser-vations from federal aind state control. There's nothing scary about the Sagebrush Rebellion. Rebel-lion. It's practical, reasonable reas-onable and necessary. It does what George H. Jones of Sevier asked for when he said, "Let's let the people peop-le that have to live in the region manage the environment environ-ment they have to live with." Here is why the Sagebrush Rebellion still deserves support. sup-port. "New York and Ohio college col-lege boys are coming out west to save our squirrels," said Lael Lovell of St. George. "My primary observation is that federal gancies are overstaffed, and part of the reason is the many unnecessary unnec-essary regulations they administer," ad-minister," said Max Green -halgh, of Park City. "The BLM is proposing a 40 to 60 percent cut of sheep and cattle to make room for moe wildlife, mainly antelope. ante-lope. We would like to live here and produce what we can, but with continued pressure pres-sure from the BLM we're having a hard time," said Meeks Morrell, of Bicknell. Complaints like these, which were expressed by members of my Citizen's Advisory Committee, under line my continued support of the Sagebrush Rebellion Bill which I introduced in 1979 to transfer the control of western lands from federal to state hands. The complaints, covering everything from environmental environ-mental extremims to displaced dis-placed priorities, persist despite the low profile the Rebellion has assumed lately. late-ly. That low profile Is due to a number of factors, the biggest big-gest being the improved land management policies of the Reagan administration. Environmental En-vironmental extremists in Washington, who once held great sway in land decisions have been replaced with more pragmatic land managers. man-agers. But there's something to remember about the improved im-proved policies of a more responsive administration: they may not be there forever. for-ever. Federal land use policy, poli-cy, left adrift in the fickle winds of national politics, could shift direction everv four years. Anybody who wants to do anything with the land from developing it to preserving it needs a consistent, con-sistent, long term manage -I ment policy before they can j take the steps that would ac-I ac-I complish their goals. 1 Energy developers, for example, are reluctant to invest in-vest in equipment to pull energy out of the ground if leasing policies vary from administration to administration. adminis-tration. Neither will environmentalists en-vironmentalists sit by and watch a new president dismantle dis-mantle the programs they established to preserve or restore violated lands or endangered species. The solution to this inconsistency, in-consistency, as well as the problems described by Lael, Max and Meeks, is the Sagebrush Sage-brush Rebellion. A new version of it was introduced in Congress this summer, which further strengthens provisions designed to prevent pre-vent states from succumbing succumb-ing to short term economic interests. |