Lets Make a Deal

If I came to you and said, “I have a deal for you. Do you agree to it?”  Your response back to me would be, “What’s the deal.” In reply I say, “We will figure that out as we go. What is important is that you say you agree to the deal. So will you take that first step and agree that we have a deal?” This seems absurd, correct? I couldn’t agree more. Yet this is the current state of play in regards to legislative action concerning Gold Butte.

Let us ignore reality for a moment, and pretend that legislation was the next step in the course of events for Gold Butte. There would need to be a clearly defined plan that addresses specific issues upfront and in the beginning stages of any legislative plan. Some of these include such concerns as a fire management plan, minimizing the negative effects of invasive plant species, properly managing water resources, transportation plan, and a growth model built to appropriately handle an influx of visitors coming for the diverse array of recreational opportunities. How will we adequately meet those needs and what kind of infrastructure will be needed to support it. How much money will come with the new designation and how will it be spent and on what? How many rangers will it take to adequately manage this area and what is the ranger to visitor ratio used to project the future management of the area as its visibility grows. By giving Gold Butte a national designation and elevating its awareness to a larger audience, it becomes not a question of, if more visitors will come, but how many and how quickly will they come.  The new influx of visitors alone would create a whole new set of issues to be addressed not yet facing Gold Butte. Despite this even small subset of questions the current plans, legislation or talks of legislation address none of this.

I point blank asked the lobbyist representing the wilderness interest the question, “What are you trying to accomplish at Gold Butte?”  The response was the same time-worn and ambiguous rhetoric, “Permanent protection for Gold Butte.” That makes for a nice sounds byte but there is more to protection than a label. Protection doesn’t happen with a stroke of a pen in Washington. Protection is brought about with a detailed plan that addresses specific issues and a dedicated group of people committed to that plan. Legislation is not the first step in that plan, it is the last step.

If this was about protection and the long term sustainability of the resources out at Gold Butte then the conversation would focus on those concerns. Not legislating a clearly defined management plan upfront, that addresses as many of the specific issues that face the area as part of the legislation, is a game of chance. People who are willing to take that risk clearly articulate their lack of understanding of the legitimate concerns that face Gold Butte. Their blatant disregard for the current issues and the issues that will be created by putting a gold star on the map for Gold Butte works only to reveal their narrow intent. This isn’t about better public lands management; it is about pushing through a massive wilderness bill.

We need to move the conversation from politics and to better public lands management. This should be about ensuring that my children, the next generation, have the same opportunities to recreate at Gold Butte and see this country as their great grandfathers did and truly enjoy this magnificent piece of public lands responsibly whether that is on a horse, fourwheeler, motorbike, hiking, or solar powered hovercraft when they are invented. It should be about creating recreational opportunities, not limiting them. It should be about educating visitors about the importance of responsible use, not limiting them from use. This should be about identifying the specific threats that face Gold Butte like fires and invasive species and how to limit their effects on the landscape. It should be about properly managing the springs, wildlife and other legitimate biological and environmental threats.

Despite these plain and simple truths the current legislation and plans being pushed for at this point in time do not address any of this. Instead it is focused on who is in congress and how they can be bullied into introducing legislation. This is not a game show and public lands policy should not be about politics.

Wilderness as a Trophy

Originally Printed in the Moapa Valley Progress August 24, 2011

I vividly remember my first deer hunt. I got a little forked horn, nothing spectacular in comparison but it was my first deer and so a great success in my rite of passage.

I remember sitting around the fire with my old man that night. The silhouette of my hanging deer drawn on the cedar trees by the flickering light of our camp fire on a cold autumn night told of the day’s earlier event.

I remember the twinge of disappointment I felt at not bringing home that trophy buck yet still proud at the day’s success.

As we crouched over the Dutch oven, eating the choice cuts out of the cast iron with our knives, I asked my father of his first hunt and if he was able to bring home a trophy buck. His answer and the simple lesson taught within have stuck with me over the years.

He said to me, “Ya know a lot of things have changed since then. It wasn’t the big commercialized enterprise that it is now. If we hunted then it was because we were hungry. We didn’t hunt so we could put a mount on the wall to showcase our trophy, we hunted because we needed meat on the table during the long winter months.”

He reflected that no, he didn’t specifically remember the first deer he brought down. But he remembered many cold fall mornings on back of a horse glassing the country side, knowing grandma was home waiting for him and depending on the days success.

I have thought about that night a lot over the years, listening to my father talk of how the simple act of bringing down a deer has evolved over the years, even within the short time from one generation to the next. However, the sport of trophy hunting isn’t exclusive to big game hunting. This progression, or regression depending on your stance, has also taken place in the hunt for Wilderness.

When the “Wilderness Act” was put forth and passed in 1964, I suppose that it was founded on a legitimate reason to protect some of those remaining places where man is visitor.

However much like my father’s story, the original intent has transformed throughout the years. It has evolved from protecting wilderness into manufacturing Wilderness. The objective for which Wilderness was created has fatefully deviated from its original course and intent.

The hunt for Wilderness has become more about the trophy than it has about the ideals for which it was created. People have made it their livelihood to become hired guns that hunt for Wilderness.

These people or groups have had their sights set on Gold Butte for many years. Whether it is for personal gain or for their own satisfaction and glorification, the trophy hunt for new Wilderness that has ravaged the west needs to stop.

No doubt Gold Butte is an amazing piece of our country but a bureaucratic label that has been demeaned and reinvented over the years to fit a narrow special interest agenda is not what will protect it for future generations. Special interest groups who pander to the emotions and simplify the debate down to ‘save it or destroy it’ degrade all interested parties and promote the partisan rancor that plagues our political system.

Wilderness will not save Gold Butte.

As William Cronon has written in his article The Trouble with Wilderness, “The time has come to rethink wilderness. We live in an urban-industrialized civilization but at the same time pretend to ourselves that our real home is in the wilderness. Wilderness is not quite what it seems.”

I am not advocating that there be no protection for Gold Butte and I point out that this is not the case. Gold Butte is currently protected as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

The continual solicitation to manufacture more Wilderness within the region of Gold Butte is nothing more than a special interest trophy hunt with their agenda at heart and not what is best for our public lands.

Local Wilderness Discussions

The scoping meetings for the Lime Canyon and Jumbo Springs wilderness areas were held a few weeks ago. I was able to attend the meeting held in Overton. The meeting was not very well attended however the discussion that we had was constructive, and I believe, informative for both sides (the community and the BLM). The discussion focused on how to manage wilderness areas both in a broad sense and also specific components that would impact the wilderness within the Gold Butte region.

The wilderness that is found within Gold Butte is for the most part undeveloped and primitive. I know this seems common sense or logical even so, it was on these simple facts that I built the basis of my suggestion for future management for these areas. We don’t need big gouty signage cluttering the landscape pointing out the way. We don’t need interpretive signage for the visitor to be told what he or she is seeing. We don’t need fences telling us which side of the road or canyon is wilderness and which isn’t. We don’t need a big red delineation on the map calling visitors attention to these places.  If we have to have wilderness, if it has to be drawn on a map so we “know” what it is, then we ought to let it be what we want it to be, wilderness.

Different sub topics like managing weeds, habitat, water sources and fire control were also discussed within the meeting.  However, most of those conversations came back to the overarching theme of managing the entire region or landscape instead of a small subset within that region. The community members who were in attendance seemed to agree that trying to manage a 4,000 acre swath of country within a 350,000 acre complex was of little worth at best and a poor utilization of government  resources when talking about weed control or habitat conservation. The whole complex needs to be managed as a single unit. To try and manage a 4,000 acre piece while leaving the remainder vulnerable because it doesn’t have a bureaucratic title is ridiculous.

This is only a brief overview of what was discussed at the Overton scoping meeting. There were two other meetings held both in Bunkerville and Mesquite. I was a little disappointed at the attendance of the Overton meeting. These meetings are both a great opportunity for the community to get to know our BLM staff and also for the community to express their thoughts and feelings about local land management. It is these meetings were we can hold our BLM staff accountable for local land management practices. If we don’t take the time to tell them how we would like to see it managed by the time you grab your pitchfork and light your torch it is probably too late to do any good.

The Moapa Valley Progress covered this meeting along with the other community meetings. Please take the time read their article and get a more well-rounded assessment of the community meetings:

http://mvprogress.com/2011/07/06/blm-seeks-public-input-on-management-of-wilderness/

Lime Canyon & Jumbo Springs Wilderness

The BLM is holding three public scoping meetings to soliciting input for two of the wilderness areas within Gold Butte. Some possible talking points for these meetings are things such as weed treatment for invasive species and developing interpretive information to educate the visiting public about the resources and history in the area. Keep in mind that these are existing Wilderness Areas so all the comments and suggestions have to be within the realm of the wilderness guidelines; which are to maintain the wilderness characteristics of the area. This is a very narrow scope to say the least. So comments like “it shouldn't be wilderness,” though possibly therapeutic, will not do much good at these meetings.

Bunkerville Community Center June 27, 2011 6 PM

Overton Community Center June 28, 2011 6 PM

Mesquite City hall June 29, 2011 6 PM

Looks like a Duck

The latest efforts for the DC Lame Duckers to pass another public lands omnibus bill have been abandoned. However, as is often the case with politics, the good news only lasts until the next line. The latest word is that the bill will be broken into smaller pieces and packaged with smaller bills for passage. I found it odd that the omnibus bill would be introduced and then so quickly allowed to die. Then came Secretarial Order 3310 from Ken Salazar on December 23 2010, Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Sect. 1 Purpose. This secretarial Order affirms that the protection of the wilderness characteristics of public lands is a high priority for the Bureau of Land Management, and is an integral component of its multiple use missions. The order provides direction to the BLM regarding its obligation to maintain wilderness resource inventories on a regular and continuing basis for public lands under its jurisdiction. It further directs the BLM to protect wilderness characteristics through land use planning and project-level decisions unless the BLM determines, in accordance with the order, that impairment of wilderness characteristics is appropriate and consistent with other application requirements of the law and other resource management considerations.

In a news release from the BLM it stated, “Secretarial Order 3310 directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), based on the input of the public and local communities through its existing land management planning process, to designate appropriate areas with wilderness characteristics under its jurisdiction as "Wild Lands" and to manage them to protect their wilderness values.”

To sum the Secretarial Order up, what the BLM can now do is manage areas like Wilderness but under the new name “Wild Lands” but not have to have a congressional act to do so. There are mild references within this order to the idea of a public process, consistent with other applicable requirements of law, however much can be read into the lack of upfront and clear-cut detail.

In a post titled Thinking Locally I talked about bringing the debate back home. This would be so we could work the issues out with the local land managers and residents who know and use the area. This would allow a plan to develop through best practices and common sense not special interest lobby and political favor. However rebranding one bureaucratic label with another to expedite a one-sided agenda isn’t exactly progress. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Wilderness under a different name is still Wilderness.

I have a suspicion that the lack of bureaucratic labels is not the problem the BLM faces. Maybe the ineffective execution of the policies we already have and the hijacking of the political process by special interest is where we need to focus our reform. If you are in a hole and cannot get out, the first thing to do is quit digging. Developing new tools may seem like the easy way to solve a problem however if we do not even use the tools we have, more tools are not going to help.  Creating a new Wild Lands designation isn’t going to do the work the BLM needs to do which is to uphold their multiple use mission and manage our lands responsibly.

It is most likely my naive hope that there is justice and objectivity left in the world that pushes me to try and find the good in Secretarial Order 3310.  The order is vague and there is plenty of room for interpretation of what is, or can be a wilderness characteristics, but let’s be optimistic. I will hope that the fair and transparent public process will really be so. I will hope that this will bring the debate home from Washington and back here with the people who know the country, know the issues and have spent generations being stewards of the land. Let’s start this New Year off hoping and working for better public lands management.

Learning the Hard Way

The recent discovery of vandalism at Red Rock National Conservation Area (NCA) at one of the rock art sites has been making the rounds on the news circuits. This kind of senseless and destructive vandalism is inexcusable and I hope that the vandals are caught. However, in trying to find the best of a bad situation, one thing that these recent actions have done is stir up the conversations around protection, education and enforcement of our public lands and cultural sites.

KNPR State of Nevada had Mark Boatwright, BLM Archeologist in Las Vegas, as a guest speaker on December 3^rd 2010. The conversation was centered on the vandalism at the rock art sites but the discussions also touched on some of the issues faced when managing cultural sites. In the interview Mark said, “The problems that we have with managing rock art sites is their accessibility. The closer that they are to the road, whether it’s an NCA or a monument; the more likely you are to see graffiti.  ”

In a post I wrote back in October, Defining Access, I worked to define that access is more than the simple definition of an open or closed road. I think that Mr. Boatwright complements this discussion with his quote about access, “The problems that we have with managing rock art sites is their accessibility.” I believe that access also encompasses the visibility or awareness of certain areas as well. Political designations are one tool that is used to raise awareness of specific areas to a much broader audience. These political designations include NCA, Wilderness, National Monument and the likes. To brand certain areas with distinct labels and highlight them on every map, publishing it on internet sites and printed media is making these areas more accessible by advertising their location. However, with this raised awareness there is also an associated risk that is being ignored.

While many are using the recent actions of vandalism at Red Rock as testimony to rush Gold Butte’s status as an NCA, I would counter that this is plain and clear evidence of why it should not be rushed. If an area like Red Rock that has been protected for many years, is much smaller geographically, and has more intense management and available resources than Gold Butte, and it is still getting vandalized, maybe pointing the spot light on Gold Butte is not in Gold Butte’s best interest. Now is not the time to earmark Gold Butte for the bureaucratic brand.

Now is the time, when Gold Butte is flying low on most people’s radar, to build a practical management plan. A management plan that focuses on education and enforcement objectives that can safeguard Gold Butte’s resources and accessibility for the general public. To label Gold Butte an NCA and highlight it on every map and print it on every national register is reckless and irresponsible. If everyone who believes they are as impassioned as they preach about what is best for Gold Butte, could focus their misguided energies on sustainable solutions for Gold Butte, positive achievements could be accomplished. However, if this agenda is pushed, it is being run at the risk of the irreparable consequences it carries to the physical sites and the general public.

It is time to foster new discussions instead of the same ol’ worn out rhetoric calling for the implementation of ineffective policies that do not work. It’s time to come up with sustainable solutions, instead of taking risks and putting our public lands in danger.

Arrow Canyon - Public Input

Arrow Canyon Wilderness – Notice of Proposed Action

The Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management is seeking public comment and participation to help them develop a management plan for the Arrow Canyon Wilderness Area. The three public meetings that they have scheduled have already been held but they are accepting written comments from the public until November 19th.

I was unable to attend these meeting however I will be sending in a letter with my comments and I also encourage you to send in your feedback as well. Arrow Canyon is close to home for many of us and most likely you grew up exploring these canyons and playing on the sand dunes. Over the years we have seen many of our old haunts be gobbled up by over eager environmentalists grasping for their next wilderness trophy. This is done while most of us sit back and let it happen. If we don’t like how things are being managed we have to play a more active role in managing these areas. Yes, Arrow Canyon has already been deemed wilderness but they are proposing new actions and are asking for public input. This is our chance to be involved. Please send in your comments.

I believe that the current means by which the BLM announces their action items is lacking to say the least. I heard about this proposed action and public comment period at the Moapa Valley Town Board meeting this week. I then had to go to their website and search the “In the Spotlight” section for the Arrow Canyon news Release. By the time I had heard about it, all the public meetings had already taken place. I think that there is a better mechanism for how the BLM can communicate with the local communities and those interested in public lands.

I suggest that if they are going to have a public meeting in a community they should announce it in the local paper at least two weeks in advance. This will give those who are interested time to get to the meeting. We also live in a digital age where the majority of citizens have access to the internet and email. The BLM has a website and technical staff that manages their site and content. The BLM needs to set up some kind of news feed or email notification system that allows those who are interested to subscribe for current and upcoming news and action items.

I also think that the simple PDF letter that they provided with bullet points listing the overly vague proposed actions is a disservice to the community as well as underhand and misleading. They have extensive data and trained staff, where are the maps of the proposed actions? I would like to see where they are targeting the invasive species. I would like to see where the decommissioned trails are that they are closing. They talk about new trails to popular features but which popular features and where will the trails be? I would also be nice to have a decent map of the area. All of these things are not freely available, if available at all, to the community.

I am tired of feeling like the BLM is yet another group that I have to fight. They are a public entity tasked with being stewards of our public lands. I think that with a little effort the BLM could create strong community relations with the local communities that they should be working with not against. I have talked repeatedly in previous posts about the idea of the public being the BLM’s greatest asset. If only we could get together and work towards a common goal of responsible public lands stewardship.

Please send in your comments to the BLM and let them know your thoughts on the Arrow Canyon Wilderness Area Management and their proposed items. I would also ask that you request for a better notification system to alert the public of their news items and more information with their proposals.

Email comments to the following address by November 19th:
lvwilderness@nv.blm.gov

Description of Arrow Canyon
The 27,530-acre Arrow Canyon Wilderness Arrow Canyon was designated by Congress in 2002. Arrow Canyon Wilderness contains three distinct land forms. The west side is a spectacular cliff face marked by a distinctive dark gray band of limestone arcing across the length of the range. The north-central portion of the wilderness area contains a wide valley cut by numerous washes. The east side is characterized by a series of deep washes, including the nearly vertical sides of Arrow Canyon.

Link to the Notice of Proposed Action:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field_office/wilderness/arrow_canyon_nopa.Par.90766.File.dat/Arrow%20Canyon%20NOPA.pdf


Proposed actions include:

• non-native invasive plant species treatments to control tamarisk and other non-native invasive plants;
• Restoration of approximately 2 miles of decommissioned route vehicle tracks to a natural condition;
• Trail designation and construction to permit public access to popular features while reducing safety hazards and erosion in sensitive areas;
• Developing guidelines and policies for technical rock-climbing including fixed hardware and maintenance;
• Removal of spray-painted graffiti; repair of bore holes resulting from geologic sampling;
• Creation of guidelines for the management of geologic research proposals; creation of guidelines for annual maintenance and repair of wildlife water developments;
• Establishment of formal trailhead and parking areas at or near the Wilderness boundary with interpretation and education information at: the Warm Springs entrance at Arrow Canyon Ranch Road off Highway 168

Take Back Utah

Help support our friends and neighbors......Take Back Utah

http://www.takebackutah.org/

"Wilderness" is the word the environmentalist's hide behind when they are trying to close our public lands to recreation.




Take Back Utah protects access to our public lands and defends the freedom of all American’s to explore and experience America’s Wild Places, while preserving America’s small town economies and rural lifestyles through responsible land use.

Aug 28th Rally

 

Please visit the site http://www.takebackutah.org/and help in any way that you can to protect our public lands

 

Deception and Disclosure

The thing about disclosure is, it’s nice when there is some.

In April of 2010, a group of people interested in the management of Gold Butte took a trip out to this beautiful country. The trip was centered on the attendance of the nation director of the BLM, Robert Abbey. We were also accompanied by other political representatives including Clark County Commissioner Tom Collins and the Mayor of Mesquite. I am a pretty simple guy and my exposure to politics was not much more than the good ol’ boys approach to getting things done. It was my impression that having the national director of the BLM out to Gold Butte was a pretty big deal. He had been the Nevada state director for a number of years and I am sure Gold Butte had come on his radar from time to time. I thought it was just a fellow Nevada man coming back to help build consensus between the groups involved. Little did I know…..

It turns out that during the time between his tenure as the Nevada State BLM Director and the National BLM Director he sat on the Board of the Friends of Nevada Wilderness. This is the parent group of the Friends of Gold Butte. This is the same group who is driving the agenda for an NCA designation, coupled with unbridled amounts of Wilderness, for our public lands and Gold butte.

Little did I know that the Good ol’ Boy system is alive and well, pushing the Wilderness agenda.

Political Frosting

One of the first posts that I wrote when I started savegoldbutte.com was titled “Where We Have Been.” The purpose of this post was to introduce the reader to the “Berkley Bill” ( H.R. 7132). I titled the post “Where We Have Been” because I had hoped that we had moved on from this bill. I had hoped that our political representatives had got the message the first time that this bill was introduced that we thought it was unacceptable if not offensive. Well as I continue to attend meetings and talk with our political representatives and their staff, still three years later, I can without a doubt count on someone pulling this bill out.

Here is my issue with this bill; the framework, the very heart of this bill, goes against everything that we have been working to protect. We can amend, adjust and modify the language over and over to dress up the package but the deliverable is still the same. It doesn’t matter how much political frosting you add on top of this bill, the very core of what it is designed to do goes against common sense conservation and real public lands management.

If we are going to create a bill lets start fresh and build the framework for a bill that attacks the issues at hand. Lets create a bill that deals with building a sustainable future for our public lands at Gold Butte. A solution that creates vast amounts of unreasonable wilderness, and adds more layers of bureaucratic mud to the mire of misguided political public lands management will only deepen the problem. We need to cut through the BS and write a bill that protects all aspects of public lands management and not just a narrowly focused agenda. We need upfront, in the legislation, protection for the existing roads and the off highway vehicles that we use to travel the roads. We need in the legislation the promise that these public lands will be managed for multiple use through camping, hunting, fishing, hiking and ATV access.

The fleeting promise of all these issues getting hammered out in the 3 year management process does not hold water with the public who has been deceived time and time again. We need to protect and provide a place for the public that enjoy their lands and their right to recreate within them responsibly. Remember they are our public lands.