1. Clawson, Marion, The Bureau of Land Management (New York, 1971), 43Google Scholar. The lands managed by the blm have no formal name. Congress has generally referred to them as the public lands.

2. Schlager, Edella and Ostrom, Elinor, “Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis,” Land Economics 68, no. 3 (1992)Google Scholar.

3. See especially Foss, Phillip O., Politics and Grass: The Administration of the Public Domain (Seattle, 1960)Google Scholar; Klyza, Christopher James, Who Controls Public Lands? Mining, Forestry, and Grazing Policies, 1870–1990 (Chapel Hill, 1996)Google Scholar; Merrill, Karen R, Public Lands and Political Meaning: Ranchers, the Government, and the Property Between Them (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2002)Google Scholar.

4. See Graf, William L., Wilderness Preservation and the Sagebrush Rebellions (Savage, Md., 1990)Google Scholar.

5. The blm oversees virtually all onshore federal oil, gas, and coal leasing, so its responsibilities extend well beyond the public lands to the national forest and the national wildlife refuge systems.

6. See, for example, Cawley, R. McGreggor, Federal Land, Western Anger: The Sagebrush Rebellion and Environmental Politics (Lawrence, Kans., 1993)Google Scholar; Coggins, George Cameron, “The Law of Public Rangeland Management III: A Survey of Creeping Regulation at the Periphery, 1934–1982,” Environmental Law 13, no. (Winter 1983)Google Scholar; Culhane, Paul J., Public Lands Politics: Interest Group In. uence on the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (Baltimore, 1981)Google Scholar; Dana, Samuel Trask and Fairfax, Sally K, Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States, 2nd ed. (New York, 1980)Google Scholar; Klyza, Who Controls Public Lands; Muhn, James and Stuart, Hanson R., Opportunity and Challenge: The Story of the BLM (Washington, D.C., 1988)Google Scholar; “Washington Notes,” American Cattle Producer 28, no. 1 (1946)Google Scholar.

7. Certainly the rise of professional public lands conservation was accelerated between 1969 and 1976 by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. R. McGreggor Cawley also explains how changes in the 1960s, especially the rise of administrative control in public lands management, set the stage for the Sagebrush Rebellion in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

8. Turner, Frederick Jackson, The Frontier in American History (New York, 1996), 3Google Scholar.

9. Cronon, William, “Turner's First Stand: The Significance of Significance in American History,” in Writing Western History, ed. Etulain, Richard W. (Reno, 1991), 90–94Google Scholar; Wright, John B., “Land Tenure: The Spatial Musculature of the American West,” in Western Places, American Myths: How We Think About the West, ed. Hausladen, Gary J. (Reno, 2003)Google Scholar.

10. Gates, Paul W., History of Public Land Law Development (Washington, D.C., 1968), 393–399Google Scholar.

11. Merrill, Public Lands and Political Meaning.

12. Gates, History of Public Land Law Development; Hibbard, Benjamin Horace, A History of the Public Land Policies (New York, 1939)Google Scholar; Peffer, E. Louise, The Closing of the Public Domain: Disposal and Reservation Policies 1900–1950 (Stanford, 1951)Google Scholar.

13. The Supreme Court found in 1897 and 1911 that the federal government “has with respect to its own land the rights of an ordinary proprietor to maintain its possession and prosecute trespassers. It may deal with such lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property.” Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 536 (1911).

14. Winter, Charles E., Four Hundred Million Acres: The Public Lands and Resources (New York, 1979), 187Google Scholar.

15. Just before the blm's formation, Wyoming Representative Frank Barrett explained the ranchers' legal interpretation this way: “It seems to me that the rule of the law was under the common law of England which was adopted by my State of Wyoming and many of the States in the west and by this country as the law of the land and under the common law of England [ranchers] had a right to use that public domain.… Consequently, these users of the public domain have a certain right. Now, the Department says that it is by sufferance and they can be thrown o. at any time. That is not true. Under the law they had a right. The common law of England was adopted and amended by the Taylor Act.” Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, Hearings Pursuant to S. Res. 241: Resolutions Authorizing the Committee on Public Lands to Make a Full and Complete Investigation with Respect to the Administration and Use of the Public Lands, 79th Cong., 1st sess., 22–23 January 1945, 13.

16. See, for example, Rothman, Hal, “‘A Regular Ding-Dong Fight’: The Dynamics of Park Service-Forest Service Controversy During the 1920s and 1930s,” in American Forests, ed. Miller, Char (Lawrence, Kans., 1997)Google Scholar; Sutter, Paul S., Driven Wild: How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement (Seattle, 2002)Google Scholar.

17. For an excellent treatment of recreation on the public lands, see Poyner, Ann Marie, “Fighting Over Forgotten Lands: The Evolution of Recreation Provision on the United States Public Domain” (Ph.D. diss., University of Bristol, 1999)Google Scholar.

18. Act of 28 June 1958 (72 Stat. 238), Clawson, Marion, Held, R. Burnell, and Stoddard, Charles H., Land for the Future (Baltimore, 1960), 464Google Scholar.

19. Clawson and Held, The Federal Lands, 93.

20. Healy, Robert G. and Shands, William E., “A Conversation with Marion Clawson: How Times (and Foresters) Have Changed,” Journal of Forestry 87, no. 5 (1989): 20Google Scholar.

21. Peterson, E. K., “Recreation on the National Land Reserve,” Our Public Lands 11, no. 3 (1962): 5Google Scholar. See also Clawson, Marion and Van Doren, Carlton S., eds., Statistics on Outdoor Recreation (Washington, D.C., 1984)Google Scholar. The Oregon and California Revested Lands total about two and a half million acres of revested railroad grants and wagon-road grants on the western side of the Cascade Mountains.

22. Dana and Fairfax, Forest and Range Policy, 194; Muhn and Stuart, Opportunity and Challenge, 69–72. See also Peterson, Gene, Pioneering Outdoor Recreation (McLean, Va., 1996), 18–44Google Scholar.

23. Clawson and Van Doren, eds., Statistics on Outdoor Recreation, 226; ORRRC, “Federal Agencies and Outdoor Recreation” (Washington, D.C., 1962)Google Scholar.

24. Stoddard, Charles H., “Report and Summary of Actions in the Bureau of Land Management During the Directorship of Charles H. Stoddard'June ′63 to June ′66” (Washington, D.C., 1966)Google Scholar.

25. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Policies, Programs, and Activities of the Department of the Interior, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 5 02 1963, 89–90Google Scholar.

26. Classification and Multiple Use Act, 78 Stat. 986. In debate, Senator Moss (D-Utah) explained: “This legislation … will give clear authority to Bureau of Land Management to develop needed recreational facilities on public lands … [and] it will be possible for the Bureau to have a more comprehensive [recreation] program.” “Legislative Analysis Public Law 88–607: The Classification and Multiple Use Act 78 Stat. 986,” P1099:1, Charles H. Stoddard Papers, Minnesota Historical Society (MHS), St. Paul.

27. Muhn and Stuart, Opportunity and Challenge, 111–15, 28–32.

28. Quoted in Cawley, Federal Land Western Anger, 21.

29. John Carver, Address at the 65tth Annual Convention of the American National Cattleman's Association, Tampa, 26 January 1962, File: Speeches: Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Public Lands Management 1962, Personal Papers of John A. Carver, John F. Kennedy Library, Boston.

30. blm Director Marion Clawson argued in 1951, “From a watershed standpoint, therefore, we find the Federal rangelands yielding a minor volume of usable water but producing a major portion of the sediment in western river basins.” Clawson, Marion, Rebuilding the Federal Range (Washington, D.C., 1951), 9Google Scholar.

31. Jensen, Cyril L., “A Preliminary Study and Report on Frail Watershed Lands,” 26 08 1964Google Scholar, Clarence Luther Forsling Papers, Library and Archives, Forest History Society, Durham, N.C. It is interesting to note that the blm's primary investigator was Clarence Forsling, Grazing Service director from 1944 to 1946. It was Forsling's efforts to reform public lands grazing that led in part to the demise of the Grazing Service in 1946, when Congress slash the service's budget.

32. Irving Senzel, Interview by Hans Stuart and James Muhn, 3 March 1988, transcript, Research Papers of James Muhn, blm Library, Denver, 55, 41.

33. Fairfax, Sally K., “Coming of Age in the Bureau of Land Management: Range Management in Search of a Gospel,” in Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management: A Report Prepared by the Committee on Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management (Boulder, 1984), 1728Google Scholar.

34. Many of these new range conservationists were veterans who returned from World War II and went to college on the gi Bill. The Society of Range Management was formed in 1948. Political scientist Sally Fairfax writes that the formation of a professional range society helped the blm in several important ways: “First, a science of range management began to take shape. Second, a potentially more objective center of interest in range management began to emerge outside of government and industry. Third, a professionally trained employment pool became available to the Bureau.” Ibid., 1729.

35. Libecap, Gary D., Locking Up the Range: Federal Land Controls and Grazing (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 61Google Scholar. Paul Culhane describes this adjudication process, begun under Marion Clawson but not finished until 1967, as “the most important local level manifestation of the professional maturation of the blm in the 1950s and 1960s.” Culhane, Public Lands Politics, 92.

36. Culhane points out that with the exception of Foss's study of Soldier Creek, this process is mentioned only briefly in most public lands literature, such as Politics and Grass, 168–70, and Private Grazing and Public Lands, 135–40. This, we might imagine, is because the process was largely a field process carried out by hundreds of range conservationists, and with the exception of appeals, it was not controlled by the Washington office. Culhane, Public Lands Politics, Note 43, 108.

37. Lerner, William, ed., Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington, D.C., 1975), 432Google Scholar.

38. Smith, Thomas G., “John Kennedy, Stewart Udall, and New Frontier Conservation,” Pacific Historical Review 67, no. 3 (1995)Google Scholar.

39. For example, shortly after the Forest Service was established, the Supreme Court sanctioned the broad delegation of regulatory authority to the agency in U.S. v. Grimaud (220 U.S. 506 [1911]). Indeed, the great threats to the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service stemmed from their own bureaucratic rivalry rather than from external forces of industry or state interests. President Kennedy's rhetoric, and more important, his budget proposals, also reinvigorated the Bureau of Reclamation, which President Eisenhower had asked to work collaboratively with state and local interests to fund dam projects in the West.

40. Kennedy, John F., “Special Message to Congress on Natural Resources,” in Public Papers of the President of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1961 (Washington, D.C., 1962)Google Scholar.

41. Stewart L. Udall, Interviewed by William W. Moss, 12 January 1970, transcript, John F. Kennedy Library, Boston, 88. Udall often complained in his journal when Kennedy fell short of his conservation heroes such as the Roosevelts, Gifford Pinchot, and Harold Ickes: Kennedy “had good environmental instincts ‘whether it be parks or wildlife or pollution—but he doesn't feel the indignation that two truly great conservation presidents felt for the despoilers, and he doesn't respond to the land with their warmth or excited interest”; and “There is such a thing as having a poetic feeling about the land. Even a politician can have it (though most only feign it). The chief lacks it, I'm sorry to say. Imagine a conservation trip where the leader never gets out of his suit or steps off the asphalt. How TR would have hooted at us—he who slept out in the snow with Muir and had the time of his life at 45. Either you love nature or you don't, I guess it's that simple.” Quoted from Smith, “John Kennedy, Stewart Udall, and New Frontier Conservation,” 355–56.

42. “Report to the President, 20 June 1961 From Secretary Udall,” 21:20, Orren Beaty Personal Papers, John F. Kennedy Library, Boston.

43. Udall, Stewart L., “Resources for Tomorrow: 1961 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior” (Washington, D.C., 1961), 17–18Google Scholar.

44. What in fact is most surprising is that Udall, under the influence of people like Rachel Carson and Wallace Stegner, published The Quiet Crisis in 1963 near the very beginning of his tenure. The book reflects a fairly developed and coherent conservation ideology. Udall, Stewart L., The Quiet Crisis (Salt Lake City, 1988)Google Scholar.

45. Smith, “John Kennedy, Stewart Udall, and New Frontier Conservation,” 357.

46. Cawley writes: “Fitting preservation and recreation demands within the multiple use framework required a transformation in the meaning of conservation. For Udall, at least, such a redefinition seemed justified.” Cawley, Federal Land Western Anger, 24.

47. Leunes, Barbara Laverne Blythe, “The Conservation Philosophy of Stewart L. Udall, 1961–1968” (Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M University, 1977)Google Scholar; Smith, “John Kennedy, Stewart Udall, and New Frontier Conservation,” 361; Udall, Stewart L., The Third Wave … America's New Conservation, vol. 3, Conservation Yearbook (Washington, D.C., 1966)Google Scholar. Udall's assistant and later undersecretary John Carver described this as the secretary's easternization and his slow alienation from western issues. John Carver, “Oral History Interview,” Interview by William W. Moss, 21 September 1969, John F. Kennedy Library, Boston, 59.

48. Legal standing requirements were relaxed substantially by the federal courts in the 1960s and 1970s, giving environmentalists new opportunities to sue land management agencies.

49. “Panel on Conservation and the Congress,” in White House Conference on Conservation (Washington, D.C., 1962)Google Scholar.

50. See, for example, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Policies, Programs, and Activities of the Department of the Interior, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 15, 21, 27 February 1961, 8.

51. Schulte, Steven C., Wayne Aspinall and the Shaping of the American West (Boulder, 2002), 241Google Scholar. Aspinall viewed the pllrc as an opportunity to “counteract the dangerous trend wherein Congress had been shunning its constitutional obligation to make laws and policies for federal land management … [which had allowed] the executive branch free control to exert its capricious political will upon federal land management” (239).

52. Ibid.

53. (pllrc) PL 88–606; the Wilderness Act, PL 88–577; (cmua) PL 88–607; and (plsa) PL 88–608.

54. Baker, Richard A., “The Conservation Congress of Anderson and Aspinall, 1963–64,” Journal of Forest History 29, no. 3 (1985): 107Google Scholar; Robert Wolf, “Public Land Law,” Interview by Claire Rhein, 15 November 1989, transcript, 227–33, K. Ross Toole Archives, Missoula, Mont.

55. PL 88–607.

56. PL 86–517. As the blm later explained, “As drafted by the Department of the Interior, the [cmua] was a declaration of multiple use policy modeled after the National Forest Multiple Use Act of 1960. “Statement of Bureau of Land Management with Respect to Regulations Implementing the Classification and Multiple Use Act,” April 1965. Charles H. Stoddard Papers, P1099:1, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.

57. PL 88–608.

58. Clawson, The Bureau of Land Management, 50.

59. Karl Landstrom was a career federal employee. Between 1937 and his appointment as blm director in 1961, he served as a farm economist in the Agriculture Department, as the chief of the blm's land classification program, and as a legislative consultant to the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. With degrees in both economics and law and with considerable federal experience, Landstrom assumed the blm directorship determined to enforce public lands laws. Charles Stoddard also had a background in economics, and by the time he became blm director his résumé included positions with the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and the Washington think tank Resources for the Future. Stoddard pressed the blm to become a professional, mission-driven agency like the Forest Service. Boyd Rasmussen held positions in the U.S. Forest Service for thirty-one years before becoming blm director, including two years as the Forest Service's deputy chief. Like Stoddard, Rasmussen focused on professionalizing the blm in ways that reflected his Forest Service background.

60. Muhn and Stuart, Opportunity and Challenge, 116–17.

61. Our Public Lands 3, no. 2 (April 1953).

62. Stoddard, Charles H., “Public Land Management: 1963–1968” (Washington, D.C., 1968), 4Google Scholar.

63. Kennedy, “Special Message to Congress on Natural Resources.”

64. Executive Order 6910, 26 November 1934 and Executive Order 6964, 5 February 35, blm Press Release, 26 January 1961.

65. Mike Harvey, Interview by Hans Stuart and James Muhn, 26 May 1988, transcript, Research Papers of James Muhn, blm Library, Denver, 2.

66. Karl S. Landstrom, Interview by Hans Stuart and James Muhn, 23 May 1988, transcript, Research Papers of James Muhn, blm Library, Denver, 25.

67. Congress had never given the blm lands a collective name. The statutes the blm administered were written separately for the grazing districts, the O&C Lands, Alaska, and other remnants of the old public domain. Even when Congress later drafted the blm's organic act in 1976, it referred to the agency's land as “the public lands,” which I use throughout. The confusion surrounding this term is apparent, and perhaps “blm lands” is the clearest nomenclature.

68. Landstrom interview, 25.

69. Memorandum, blm Director to the Secretary of the Interior, “Background Material for blm Briefing,” 30 September 1964. Charles H. Stoddard Papers, P1099:1, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.

70. Director's Office Instruction Memorandum No. 64–80, 24 September 1964. Charles H. Stoddard Papers, P1099:1, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul.

71. Our Public Lands 14, nos. 3–4 (Winter–Spring 1965)Google Scholar.

72. Schwartz, Eleanor, “A Capsule Examination of the Legislative History of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,” Arizona Law Review 21, no. 2 (1979)Google Scholar.

73. “Names for the Public Lands,” folder 168, Public Lands Foundation Archive, Bureau of Land Management National Training Center, Phoenix.

74. “Public Land Statistics” (Washington, D.C., 2003)Google Scholar.

75. Clawson and Held, The Federal Lands, 5–7.

76. Stoddard, “Report and Summary of Actions in the Bureau of Land Management During the Directorship of Charles H. Stoddard—June ′63 to June ′66.”

77. Ferry Carpenter, the first director of the U.S. Grazing Service, recalls trying to locate maps of the public lands in the 1930s: “I rushed over to the General Land Office and said, “I am going out there to handle 140,000,000 acres of land and … I'd like a map.” “We haven't any map.” “What? No map?” I said.…. What kind of an outfit is this?” Well, the fellow looked at me like a bull at a bastard calf. He said, “You don't know much, do you? … We have seventeen land offices in the West and they are open as the sun goes around. Every minute of the day, some bird is walking in and homesteading a piece.… So it changes every minute. We never know where it is.” Foss, Phillip O., ed., Public Land Policy: Proceedings of the Western Resources Conference (Boulder, 1970), 87Google Scholar.

78. See in particular the hearings led by Senator McCarran (D-Nev.) and Representative Barrett (R-Wyo.) in the 1940s. Hearings Pursuant to S. Res. 241: Resolutions Authorizing the Committee on Public Lands to Make a Full and Complete Investigation with Respect to the Administration and Use of the Public Lands; Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Public Lands, Public Lands Policy: Hearings Pursuant to H. Res. 93, Committee Hearing No. 30, 80th Cong., 1st sess., 21 April 21 and 10 May 1947.

79. Stoddard, Charles, Introductory remarks: “Multiple Resources Planning for the Future,” Denver, 20 04 1964, 1Google Scholar.

80. Classification and Multiple Use Act and Public Land Sales Act of 1964.

81. Muhn and Stuart, Opportunity and Challenge, 112.

82. Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation's Land (Washington, D.C., 1970), 53Google Scholar. See also USDI, Bureau of Land Management, “Public Land Classification Progress,” 1 09 1970Google Scholar. Cited in Gregg, Frank, “Federal Land Transfers: The Case for a Westwide Program Based on the Federal Land Policy and Management Act” (Washington, D.C., 1982), 15Google Scholar.

83. Commission, One Third of the Nation's Land, 53.

84. Charles H. Stoddard, “Oral History Interview with Charles H. Stoddard,” Interview by Helen McCann White, 29 November 1967, transcript, Charles H. Stoddard papers, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, 25; Stoddard, Charles H., “Public Participation in Public Land Decisions,” in Public Land Policy: Proceedings of the Western Resources Conference, ed. Foss, Phillip O. (Boulder, 1968), 80Google Scholar; Stoddard, Charles H. and O'Callaghan, Jerry A., “Creative Federalism on the Retention or Disposition of Public Lands,” Arizona Law Review 8, no. 1 (1966)Google Scholar.

85. Bob Jones, Interviewed by Hans Stuart and James Muhn, 1988, blm Library, Denver, 27; Stoddard, “Public Participation in Public Land Decisions,” 80–81.

86. Muhn and Stuart, Opportunity and Challenge, 111–15.

87. Wright, “Land Tenure: The Spatial Musculature of the American West.”

88. John Carver, Speech before the Washington Section of the Society of American Foresters, Washington, D.C., 30 November 1961, 3, File: Speeches: Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Public Lands Management, Personal Papers of John A. Carver, John F. Kennedy Library, Boston.

89. Forest Service leaders and supporters had long criticized the blm for its failure to control the livestock industry. As one author put it in 1951, “Their comparative records, however, reveal that the blm, as contrasted with the Forest Service, has been a weak and ineffective guardian of our natural range and timber wealth.” McCormick, Robert L. L., “Management of Public Land Resources,” Yale Law Journal 61 (1951)Google Scholar.

90. Calef, Wesley, Private Grazing and Public Lands: Studies of the Local Management of the Taylor Grazing Act (Chicago, 1960)Google Scholar; Foss, Politics and Grass; Kaufman, Herbert, The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior (Baltimore, 1960)Google Scholar.

91. The blm planning program was directed by Robert A. Jones, who had come up through the agency's Lands and Realty Program in the 1950s under the leadership of Karl Landstrom. He was committed to comprehensive, analytical planning rooted in resource economics. The planning program was also shaped by Ron Hofman, who had a background in forestry. Both Jones and Hofman earned master's degrees in planning in the late 1960s, re. ecting their commitment to professional public administration.

92. Jones, Robert A., “Multiple Use Planning in blm-Some Personal Recollections,” 16 05 1988Google Scholar, Research Papers of James Muhn, Denver, 4, 31; Leman, Christopher K., “Formal Versus De Facto Systems of Multiple Use Planning in the Bureau of Land Management: Integrating Comprehensive and Focused Approaches,” in Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management: A Report Prepared by the Committee on Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management (Boulder, 1984)Google Scholar.

93. Indeed, this was the problem that resource economists had been working on for years, without success. Paulsen, David Frederick, “An Approach to Organizational Analysis: A Case Study of the Bureau of Land Management” (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1966), 264Google Scholar; Wengert, Norman, Natural Resources and the Political Struggle (New York, 1955), 25–29Google Scholar.

94. Jones, Robert A., “Developing a Planning System for Public Domain Lands: An Analysis of Organization Change in the Bureau of Land Management” (M.A. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1971), 12Google Scholar.

95. Nelson, Robert H., Public Lands and Private Rights: The Failure of Scientific Management (Lanham, Md., 1995), 133–136Google Scholar.

96. Jones, “Developing a Planning System for Public Domain Lands,” 11–12.

97. For a detailed treatment of ppbs and federal land management, see Nienaber, Jeanne and Wildavsky, Aaron, The Budgeting and Evaluation of Federal Recreation Programs (New York, 1973)Google Scholar.

98. Jones, “Developing a Planning System for Public Domain Lands,” 22.

99. Ibid.

100. Nelson, Public Lands and Private Rights: The Failure of Scientific Management, 137.

101. Evidence of this can be found in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Cawley, Federal Land Western Anger.

102. Paul Culhane explains how the blm and the Forest Service capitalized on the growth of interest-group competition in Culhane, Public Lands Politics.

103. Public Land Law Review Commission, One Third of the Nation's Land: A Report to the President and to the Congress by the Public Land Law Review Commission (Washington, D.C., 1970)Google Scholar. As Cawley explains, “Rather than a manifesto for open exploitation, the pllrc offered a carefully crafted set of recommendations attuned to both traditional conservation and new conservation.” Cawley, Federal Land Western Anger, 36. As one blm employee later explained, “It's a tremendously comprehensive document [but] … you end up … in utter frustration because it's so contradictory. You can find anything in it to satisfy your point of view. … The trouble always was, almost invariably you would find an opposing point of view within the document itself.” George L. Turcott, Interviewed by Bob Stewart, 18 March 1980, transcript, Research Papers of James Muhn, blm Library, Denver, 8.

104. Senzel, Irving, “Genesis of a Law, Part 1,” American Forests 84, no. 1 (1978)Google Scholar; Senzel, , “Genesis of a Law, Part 2,” American Forests 84, no. 2 (1978)Google Scholar.

105. Paul Culhane argues that blm field managers effectively played competing interest groups off of one another to enhance administrative control. Culhane, Public Lands Politics, 218.