What is Protection

Wednesday September 28, 2011 the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, David J. Hayes came into mesquite Nevada. The Secretary came to discuss Gold Butte with the local stakeholders. The meeting was billed as an opportunity to talk about Gold Butte and setting the conservation priorities for the area.

Deputy Secretary Hayes started the meeting off by stating that Secretary Salazar and the Interior Department wants to promote special areas found within public lands and give them “special protections” and the recognition that they deserve. Deputy Secretary Hayes talked about Secretary Salazar’s letter that was sent to all Congressional Representatives asking for areas within their district that are deserving of special protection. He spoke in broad terms about the lofty ideals of conservation and of its importance. It is my opinion that the Secretary worked to set a tone for the meeting where people would feel comfortable sharing their views on what would be best for the area. However it was not hard to see through the thinly veiled bias of a political appointee.

The message that I delivered was that we need to take the politics off the table and work to build a sustainable future for Gold Butte. It will be after that plan is built that we can pursue the correct political avenue to accomplish that objective, not before. I consider the top down approach, of Washington pushing the agenda and seeking their own designation as disingenuous and backwards politics. This strategy does more to erode the public’s confidence that consensus, rather than politics, will provide a long term solution.

The use of broad terms to generalize complex issues acts only to stir the pot. It does not encourage people to seek the middle ground but rather to assume that their own unyielding interpretation and preconceived ideas are the only answer. It works only to corral the scope of people’s ability to think outside previous practice. This is especially the case when many of these words have a distinct connotation associated to them whether that be negative or positive. For example “protection” to one might mean Wilderness, and to the person next to you, that might mean protecting access to trails. If we cannot advance the conversation past politically charged and timeworn rhetoric then the standoff will continue.

 

After the meeting I had the opportunity to meet with the Mayor of Mesquite. The Mayor has a plan to put a group of the interested participants together to start anew at building consensus.  As I understand, his goal is to get everyone to the table on the premise of starting with a clean slate. At this point each item can then be discussed as to the pros and cons and its long term consequences on the sustainability of Gold Butte. It will be here that the community develops its long term vision of what they want to see Gold Butte become. It will be here at the community level where a reasonable solution will develop.

I support the Mayor’s plan for Mesquite to take the reins and build a community consensus. It will be at that point that we find the correct political avenue to push that agenda, not the other way around.

Metrics to Management

Creating Practical Public Lands Policy

I am currently employed as a computer programmer. As a part of every application that I write I build a metrics component within the application. I track what functionality in the application gets used and how often. I do this because it allows me to make informed decisions about the applications that I manage. It allows me to take my metrics, things that I know, and translate that into a better management plan or process for the applications that I am tasked with maintaining. It is my opinion, that this same principle can be applied to managing our public lands.

While trying to sift and sort through all the claims and accusations about what is and what is not taking place at Gold Butte I have heard a lot of different claims from all sides. Working to come up with real world solutions, rather than hope a new political label will fix the “problem”, I thought I would try and gather what metrics I could on public lands at Gold Butte. How can we make management decisions based on abstracted hypothesis and unfounded assumptions?

If people, groups or management agencies have specific concerns about our public lands we have to sit down, list them out and come up with real world, practical solutions for each specific concern. The message that we sent to our representatives is something I truly believe; that we support a fair, transparent and open process to developing a management plan for our public lands. Collaboration and data create the opportunity to deliver results.

Increased Usage (Traffic Data and Visitor Count)
One of the biggest concerns that you hear and read over and over is about the increased usage of Gold Butte for a recreational destination. I won’t point out the obvious conflicting rationale of this claim coupled with, so we need to give Gold Butte more recognition. I will save that for a later post, but it’s something to think about.

In many peoples rational for whatever cause they champion you will hear the claim that there is increased traffic and usage out at Gold Butte. I am not disputing this claim however I wanted some actual numbers to in fact see what the increase in usage at Gold Butte is. I made contact with the BLM requesting this data along with other statistics relating to Gold Butte. Would you like to know what the actual increase of usage over time is? Me too! The BLM does not have any data, past or present, with regard to traffic or visitor counts for this region.

I am not disputing that the number of people that visit Gold Butte is growing. However, to use this rationale at face value with absolutely no numbers to back it up is foolish. People are making life altering management decisions for public lands, whether political or by the managing agency, with no actual data. The basis is nothing but elusive assumptions. How can you measure success unless your only goal is to restrict total access without baseline information and a clear and open objective?

Rangers
I have heard the argument that we need more rangers to patrol Gold Butte. I do not have a stance on this because I don’t know enough about policing public lands for me to say one way or the other. Some simple questions that I have asked, that would help me better understand, I have never got answered. How many rangers do we need? Is this number calculated off the sheer acreage of the particular region? Is it based off of incident reports and tickets from the field?

When I requested the traffic data for Gold Butte I also asked for data on incidents in the Gold Butte region, both policing and cataloged incidents for cultural sites. I was told that there is some data for the last few years however this information is not available to the public. For people to use this rationale for hopes of getting an NCA without the proper data is short sighted and detrimental to other public lands within the BLM’s purview. This would do nothing but pilfer resources from other public lands within the state. Stressing one place and stripping others of their recognition.

If we are going to find legitimate solutions to the problems that face our public lands we have to first be able to define the problem, have a goal or solution we want to reach, have base line data to gage our progress, and continue to track metrics until we can honestly claim success or failure. There has to be accountability on all sides of the table. We cannot continue to allow people, agencies or special interest the luxury to hide behind a cloud of vagaries due to the lack of accurate and freely available information.

Metrics create accountability and accountability is like disclosure….its nice when there is some.

What do You See?

The Great Outdoors is a classic 1980’s John Hughes film starring John Candy and Dan Aykroyd. It is about two families who vacation in a beautiful mountain lake village and the adventures they have while enjoying the great outdoors. I have great memories of watching this movie when I was a kid and still today, when watching it with my kids, this movie is still great. There is one scene in particular however that had never caught my attention until now.

The scene I am talking about is set with Chet (Candy) an all American family man and Roman (Aykroyd) a die hard businessman sitting out on the deck of the cabin overlooking the beautiful lake and the men enter into a conversation about what they see.

Roman - "I tell you what I see when I look out there. I see the undeveloped resources of Minnesota, Northern Wisconsin, and Michigan. I see a syndicated development consortium exploiting over a billion and a half dollars in forest products. I see a paper mill and if the strategic metals are there, a mining operation. A greenbelt between the condos on the lake and a waste management facility focusing on the newest rage in toxic waste, medical refuse. Infected bandages, body parts, IV tubing, contaminated glassware, entrails, syringes, fluids, blood, low grade radioactive waste all safely contained sunken in the lake and sealed for centuries. Now I ask you what do you see?"

Chet - "I see trees."

In conversations that I have with people who are concerned or interested about Gold Butte and when reading different articles about people’s ideas about the issues that face Gold Butte I have to ask myself, what do they see?

Is there a Roman Craig out there lurking about trying to exploit Gold Butte?

Is it the threat of big development and a housing tract?

Is it the potential that this area has for renewable energy and becoming a field of solar panels and wind turbines?

Is it the threat of the Boy Scouts of America trying to take a group of boys out on an outdoor adventure?

Is it the threat of ATV riders out enjoying the trails?

I know politically it would be a lot easier to get things accomplished if there really was the obvious threat of a Roman Craig trying to exploit the natural resources held within this desert landscape however this isn’t the case. Even if that was the threat that Gold Butte faced its current status as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) protects it from those blatant exploitations.

Everyone at the table seems to be talking about protection and conservation however everyone has a different view of what conservation is and the line between protection and restriction is blurry at it best.

Is restricting access through vast amounts of wilderness areas the best way to conserve and enjoy our public lands?

Is the status quo of public lands management going to work for this large area with a growing number of outdoor enthusiasts?

For me neither of the above statements is going to provide us with a sustainable future for Gold Butte. The solution is somewhere is the middle. I truly do not see how some new bureaucratic categorization such as NCA is going to solve the problems people see at Gold Butte. It is still the same agency that is going to manage these public lands. The first thing that people in support of the NCA throw out is funding and getting more rangers for policing. However when I talk to our political representatives and the BLM and ask specifically how many more rangers will it take to “adequately” police Gold Butte, and exactly how many new rangers will we get when it becomes an NCA, I cannot get an answer. People always focus on the rare and truly uncommon infractions that occur on our public lands. The use these rare examples for ammo to punish the majority of the public who obey, respect and help enforce the rules and regulations that keep our public lands open.

The way I see we need to stop pretending a congressional mandate with over generalized cookie cutter language, saddled with a polluted history of restricted access, can be the solution for an area with a rich history of multiple use. The way I see it the only way to come up with a sustainable answer for Gold Butte is to sit down with the BLM, our political representatives and all those who feel they have a vested interest in our public lands and come up with a real, common sense solution that will deliver a viable public lands management strategy for Gold Butte. This will not only create a sustainable solution but it will also hold everyone involved accountable instead of being a quick win in an election year and a victory for a special interest group with a narrow agenda.

Now I ask you, what do you see?

My Message To Our Representatives

Over the last few weeks I have had the opportunity to meet with a range of political representatives from local community leaders to congressional staffers. These meetings were setup so interested parties could discuss the issues surrounding Gold Butte. My agenda going into these meetings has been pretty simple, however I have found that the answers are not. The following is the message that I share with our political representatives:

The problem as I understand it at Gold Butte is that there is not an effective management plan in place that satisfies all parties who are concerned over the stewardship of the Gold Butte region.

Throughout the last few decades we have fought many battles trying to find a sustainable balance of multiple use in our public lands. However the same issues keep getting drug to the surface and every time we lose more access to our public lands. In 1998 we went through the Roads Management Plan (RMP) process to designate all existing roads as a part of the Gold Butte trail system. A lot of work went into the RMP by many members of the community. However we continue to lose access to existing roads. Later in 2008 Representative Berkley introduced legislation to create Gold Butte as a National Conservation Area against popular opinion.

An effective management plan needs to be created to put into perpetuity the administration and the uses at Gold Butte. We are tired of fighting the battle every time a new administration, a new representative or some political faction obtains political power. The issue needs to be taken care of in a responsible manner. The people who use this area have to be legitimately involved and be able to provide input throughout the process. There is a wide array of people who visit this area from all over the United States. Gold Butte is truly a region of multiple use. It is essential that the existing and historical uses of Gold Butte be protected to ensure the history of multiple use for our public lands.

Is a National Conversation Area the only management tool that you are willing to consider to resolve the issues sounding Gold Butte?

An NCA for Gold Butte?

Many people and political factions believe that the problem with Gold Butte, is that it is not being effectively managed. Currently the public lands in the Gold Butte area are under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Before we jump to conclusions about the BLM, I must admit as my own opinion, that the BLM is underfunded and over tasked. Over 80 percent of all lands in Nevada are owned by the Federal Government and the BLM is charged with managing a large majority of that land. This is no doubt a daunting task. However, my family has had our own struggles with the BLM and our grazing rights, so I understand that there is another side to the story.

At this time, many of the more extreme environmental groups and those who are politically motivated, believe that the best solutions for Gold Butte is to be designated as a National Conservation Area (NCA). There are also talks about designating Gold Butte as a National Monument but that deserves and requires its own separate discussion.

The National Conservation Area (NCA) was created under the larger umbrella of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) which is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This system was created in 2000. The NLCS mission statement is to, “conserve, protect and restore nationally significant landscapes recognized for their outstanding cultural, ecological and scientific values.” Because an NCA would remain under the umbrella of the BLM, we are lead to believe that through legislative action the Gold Butte area will receive additional funding.

Currently there are 16 designated NCAs in the United States, three of them being in Nevada: Black Rock Desert (799,165 acres), Red Rock (195,819 acres), and Sloan Canyon (48,438 acres). Within the entire NLCS there is approximately 27 million acres.

When working toward resolving any conflict, the pros and cons must be taken into account. One of the positive things about an NCA is that there would be elevated protection for the area within the designation. However, it takes an act of congress to designate an NCA, so the legislation can get written to fulfill any political agenda that the congressional sponsor may have. This also means that any political faction that is well funded or well connected can greatly influence the legislations direction.  Another thing to keep in mind is that an NCA is not a substitute or replacement for a Wilderness Area. Often times NCAs contain Wilderness Areas.

If the NCA designation really is the direction that the Gold Butte area is headed, we need to ensure that the historical uses of the land are written into the legislation. In previous NCA designations, uses such as grazing have been listed as a statutory use and value of the area. If we can build these same types of protections for our existing roads, camping areas, hunting and wildlife management and other historical uses that are important to the community, then a consensus may be reached.

Conservation is an important way to help protect our most valuable cultural and natural resources for our future generations; however this is not done by limiting access. Protection with access to our public lands is key for a successful management plan to the Gold Butte Area.