Las Vegas News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and Classifieds

Las Vegas Review-Journal - Opinion

Wednesday
Mar 17, 2010
Mostly Sunny
Mostly Sunny 77° Weather Forecast

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

Opinion


EDITORIAL: New wilderness?

Not so fast, say some Northern Nevadans

Over the past six years, Nevada's U.S. senators, Harry Reid and John Ensign, have successfully pushed public lands bills which facilitated the sale of tens of thousands of acres formerly managed by the federal government in Clark, Lincoln and White Pine counties, allowing additional room for growth in Southern Nevada.

So far so good.


Most Popular Stories
  1. Heat on Titus
  2. Big government is here to protect us all
  3. Judging a judge
  4. Open ... and shut
  5. A lottery would raise money for education



On the down side, the bills also designated more than 1.7 million new Nevada acres as federally "protected" wilderness, stymieing the objective of a net reduction in the 90 percent of Nevada still controlled from afar by the bureaucrats of the Potomac.

Now, similar plans are afoot in northwestern Nevada, where environmentalists are pushing a proposal to newly label as "wilderness" nearly 700,000 acres in Lyon, Mineral and Esmeralda counties.

But this time, northern Nevadans appear to have seen them coming.

Meeting halls were packed with opponents during several public discussions in March and April. More than 700 people crowded into Smith Valley High School in Lyon County -- most to oppose any new wilderness. County commissions in all three counties have OK'd resolutions opposing any new wilderness designations.

"Basically, the commission has said we don't want wilderness, we don't need wilderness," explains Mineral County Commissioner Jerrie Tipton, adding that she and others are worried changes could affect mining, recreation and military training, all important to the local economies.

"There's a fear here over what government is going to do to us and not for us," Jim Sanford, a 50-year resident of Yerington, explained to the Reno Gazette-Journal. "The feeling here is we don't trust them."

But the targeted land is composed of beautiful slices of rural Nevada that provide critical habitat for wildlife, justifying "special protection," supporters say.

"What wilderness does is keep a part of Nevada's wild heritage there," explains Shaaron Netherton, executive director of Friends of Nevada Wilderness. "It's a place for wildlife to go, it's a place for people to get away."

Actually, while the solitude of the whistling wind can have its charms, Ms. Netherton sounds like she's preparing to sell someone a stuffed jackalope. Much of these tracts are desert, jackrabbit habitat for which the prime economic uses have always been -- likely always will be -- mining and grazing. And few people can "get away" into an arid designated wilderness without risking the fate of the Donner Party, because motor vehicle access is blocked, as is the ability to hunt for food.

"Wilderness" rangers don't blaze new roads and hiking trails -- they block off the old ones.

John Wallin, director of the Nevada Wilderness Project, laments that the opposition is premature, unnecessary and "fear-based." He said critics have misrepresented the level of government control on activities such as grazing and mining that can occur within a wilderness.

Really? We're supposed to believe government rangers and the eco-theocrats are so anxious to see the cattle industry and the ranching way of life sustained that they're going to issue new low-cost permits to allow cattle to graze away the fire-hazard dried brush and grasses from additional millions of acres here in the West?

The residents of the northern counties are smart to raise a ruckus now, loud and long. "We are not going to force a lands bill down the throats of any county," vows Sen. Ensign. "If they don't want a lands bill, we won't do a lands bill."

Good.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Leave Your Comment 6 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Current Word Count:

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

Report abuse

lsl wrote on April 14, 2008 04:46 PM: Friends of Nevada Wilderness, you've shoved you land grab ideas down everyone's throats, now you face rural Nevada, that don't like your land grab ideas, your here to save them from themselves ideas. Go back home where you came from and shave those arm pits.


Report abuse

douglas wrote on April 14, 2008 11:22 AM: if the eco-loonies play their cards right they can eliminate any chance at harvesting those central nevada tar sands. thus they can continue to complain that the "big oil" companies are evil since they are forced to fistfight with china and india in the crude oil auctions.

if these eco-loonies felt so strongly about preserving some environment, they first should carefully demolish their residences so as to return the land to wildlife.


Report abuse

RDP wrote on April 14, 2008 09:55 AM: Geezer, the way the wilderness change is written, you would NEVER get back in there to see these beautiful places.

It is making the liberal tree huggers happy, eliminating any off main road activity, any disturbance in the crust of the ground, etc.

The rules ruin what has worked for all these years.....

Typical liberal mentality- let's fix something that isn't broke!


Report abuse

John Deymonaz wrote on April 14, 2008 09:45 AM: As a long time resident of Esmeralda County I love this beautiful country. However, I believe multiple use has served us well for decade and should be continued. Most of the 700,000 acres considered do not qualify as "Wilderness" under the Wilderness Act of 1964, but would be fabricated from areas which have long enjoyed motorized access, mining and grazing and all types of recreation for us, the Public these Public Lands are for. The new wilderness proposal is misdirected and wrong for this area.


Report abuse

Geezer wrote on April 14, 2008 09:09 AM: That "desert jackrabbit habitat" includes many beautiful but almost unknown places hidden in the desert mountain ranges. I had driven past them many times in ignorance until my friends brought back photographs. Wilderness is a good way to save these mountain treasures.


Report abuse

timinator wrote on April 14, 2008 08:51 AM: Federal lands, besides for uses specifically outlined by our Founders, are not Constitutional. This has been and continues to be a land grab, which we have, unfortunately, become desensitized to.