The Sagebrush Rebellion, a movement to assert more local and state control over western federal lands that began in Nevada in the 1970s, ebbs and flows.

It seems to be hitting peak fever in Utah these days, what with Utah senators Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett helping to form a new Western Caucus to fight for more resource exploitation on public lands. That move reflects the feelings of many angry rural Utahns.

These folks don't like the fact that the Obama Administration withdrew oil and gas leases on Bureau of Land Management property. The ATV ride on an officially closed portion of the Paria River in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument reflected frustration with federal managers. So did rage over the arrests of prominent citizens accused of stealing artifacts from federal land in southeastern Utah.

Taking an ATV ride on a route locals claim has been open for years or removing artifacts from an ancient American Indian ruin might seem justified to some rural Utahns who figure that since their ancestors settled and tamed this often rugged land they -- and not federal land managers -- should be calling the shots.

This anger can be especially intense when a Secretary of the Interior, such as Bruce Babbitt during the Clinton Administration, or current Interior head Ken Salazar come into office and begin tilting land management practices more toward wilderness, recreation and environmental stewardship and less toward the commodity

Even with Republicans in charge, the Sagebrush Rebellion has always been more about bluster and less about actual on-the-ground solutions. Hatch didn't have any luck when he launched similar attacks in the 1970s. Reviving it is a another ridiculous political stunt.

Sagebrush rebels would like to put thousands of acres in private hands or under state control. At the least, they would like to see environmental laws relaxed to make it easier to drill and mine on public lands. But the rebels lost the first time and will lose again now.

Part of this is a numbers game.

Federal land states such as Utah are becoming increasingly urbanized. City dwellers outnumber rural residents and view federal lands as vast playgrounds where they can hike, ride motorized vehicles, camp, fish, mountain bike and hunt. The thought that access to these special places might be restricted or ruined with ill-conceived development does not sit well with not only the majority of Americans but most Westerners.

It has always seemed curious that locals somehow expect that should federal lands be privatized or turned over to the state, they would get a better deal than they have now.

Chances are that if this property was sold to the highest bidders, it would not be the public lands ranchers or local residents who would win but richer, out-of-state interests who more than likely would kick locals off these lands. Financially strapped states would certainly charge as much, if not more, in royalties or grazing fees.

Multiple use management of public lands that includes responsible grazing, mining, timber harvesting, and oil and gas development with strict environmental rules and mitigation requirements certainly has a place.

But the ultimate value of these lands to both local economies and to the public at large is for them to remain as pristine as possible. Open spaces fuel tourism while good management allows rural residents to continue to use these lands for livestock grazing and recreation.

The Sagebrush Rebellion was a bad idea when it was hatched in the 1970s and it hasn't improved with age.

Tom Wharton is an outdoors and travel columnist. Reach him at wharton@sltrib.com or 257-8909.