I find a lot of this interesting and would definitely like to see some sort of definitive proof beyond conjecture and rumors prolifereated on the internet.
Something that always bothers me about these conversations, however, is what seems like a presupposition on the part of many Conservatives that land that isn't having resources actively extricated from it is "worthless".
Should public land be managed for multiple uses? No doubt! Among those uses should be backcountry morotrless wilderness... along with all the others. From my perspective (which is admittedly limited) it is wilderness that is in short supply, not other sorts of land and once wilderness is tossed it is typically left that way.
