The Nevada Wilderness Project meets Lyon County

Back in February, in response to the Nevada Wilderness Projects Wilderness Proposal the good people of southern Lyon County came togehter to form the Coalition for Public Access. In a little over eight weeks they have become a force to be reckoned with. Thanks to their advocacy Mineral, Esmeralda and Lyon Counties have unanimously passed motions against this wilderness proposal. We are sharing our Non-profit Tax ID# with the CPA to help them get off the ground.

This is how the story has played out in the news:

• Map showing proposed wilderness land designation expansion causes concerns
• Coalition for Public Access forms locally to oppose wilderness lands designation
• Packed house unanimous in opposition to wilderness proposal
• Mineral County residents reject wilderness, Commissioners adopt resolution saying so
• What is the Nevada Wilderness Project?
• Letters to the Editor
• Lyon Commission standing fast on wilderness rejection
• Fight The Wilderness Project T-shirts on sale now
• Single Congressman can't stop wilderness, but one Senator could
• Lawmakers ease off on wilderness idea
• Kristaponis opposes Lyon County lands bill
• Lands bill rejected by Lyon officials
• Commissioners pass resolution calling for end of lands bill
• Two Cents Worth: We'll be dead before upstream water helps lake, IF it does Watch for end run on wilderness via study, roadless areas...

Note: As you read this article keep in mind the Nevada Wilderness Project has yet to flesh out their proposal. Nothing has been written and they are not ready discuss any details, but they have asked the Nevada Congressional Delegation to include their proposal. Looking at their web site they are proposing that 692,899 acres in Lyon and Mineral Counties be designated as wilderness in the Land's Bill Senator Reid is currently crafting.

Last January the Nevada Wilderness Project took the Lyon County Commissioners, a few ranchers and representatives from the offices of Congressmen Reid, Ensign and Heller on a field trip to look over some of the land they wanted designated as Wilderness. Everyone's understanding was the proposal would cover 88,000 acres around Bald Mountain and East Sister Peak in south Lyon County. At the end of the meeting the Nevada Wilderness Project pulled out maps showing 188,000 acres. Phyllis Hunewill, Commissioner for District 5, became alarmed, began spreading the alarm and ever since south Lyon County has been up in arms.

This story starts in 2005 with the Bridgeport District of the Humbolt-Toiyabe NF starting the process of updating their Land Use plan. The Nevada Wilderness Project, speaking for the Nevada Wilderness Coalition, asked the Forest to consider designating areas along the summit of the Sweetwater Mountains and the East Fork of the Walker River as wilderness. The Forest determined none of these lands were suitable for wilderness designation due to a 150-year history of mining, ranching and other human activities that had left their imprint. They did designate these areas as being “Roadless”, indicating that while there was a significant network of roads, these roads divided the landscape into islands' of mostly unspoiled landscape. Rather than designate this as potential future wilderness the Forest Service decided the current multi use designation was appropriate for these roadless areas and they would continue to allow the maintenance of existing roads and the building of approved new roads.

Moving forward to 2007 our Congressional Delegation starts working on a Land's Bill for Lyon County. You've been reading about this bill if you have been following the news about the proposed Lyon County Jail at Silver Springs, the selling of public lands around Fernley for commercial development. Taking advantage of the situation the Nevada Wilderness Project sent their lobbyists to Washington and started talking to our Congressional Delegation about including wilderness areas in the upcoming bill. After that January meeting folks started poking around the Nevada Wilderness Project's web site (www.wildnevada.org) and discovered maps outlining 692,899 acres of proposed wilderness.

It didn't take long for the good citizens of south Lyon County to organize their opposition. Their rural sense of Nevaditude came boiling to the surface. Folks started talking about organizing before you could say battle born the Coalition for Public Access (www.cfpa-nv.org) was birthed. They went public at the March 5th meeting of the Smith Valley Advisory Board. When the Advisory Board finished their agenda the meeting was turned to Emery Thran and the Coalition for Public Access. Representatives from our Congressional Delegation had been invited to listen to the CPA's opposition to the NWP's wilderness proposal, and while the Nevada Wilderness Project had accepted an invite to speak as well, at the last minute they begged off stating they needed more time to work on their proposal. The same proposal they had posted on their web site.

The meeting started with the Coalition asking the representatives from our Congressional Delegation's to explain the status of the Nevada Wilderness Project's proposal. From Reid's office we heard that several people had expressed an interest in adding some wilderness and the he was there to reduce the misinformation and miscommunication but we never heard what it was we misunderstood. From Heller's office we heard that before anything was to be decided he needed hear from the local community. Senator Ensign's office told us that while the wilderness had been proposed local input was needed, we were the experts needed to help craft the legislation. Then we heard from those local experts.

Emery started by informing our Congressional Delegation the general consensus that very little of the proposed wilderness areas meet the criteria laid out in the Wilderness Act. While there was a place for wilderness this was not it. These areas had a 150-year history of multiple use and currently over 20 different user groups used these areas to recreate or make a living. First up we heard from 3rd and 4th generation ranchers explaining how their families had been stewards of the land long before there had been a Forest Service or BLM. Having spent many a day in the saddle of my KLR surveying these lands I'd say any knowing man could see they have done a good job. If they had not kept the land productive their ranches would have gone under. If they had not kept the land productive I wouldn't be seeing the deer, pronghorns, bear, rabbits, hawks, coyotes and other wildlife I find every time I ride there. One rancher's daughter told a poignant tale. Donna Hustace told us about taking her mother, who suffered from Alzheimer, on a trip into the proposed Pine Grove Wilderness area, a trip they had made many times before, but this time the trip was only made possible by using the existing roads to haul their horse trailers into the heart of this proposed wilderness. It was a trip she was able to record on film because the cameraman was able to follow along on an ATV. While she knew that 30 minutes after returning home her mother would no longer remembered that camera had captured her mother's smile full of memories. Had this been wilderness her mother would have lost that afternoon of clarity, wilderness does not fall under the ADA. And we heard that if this area had been wilderness the search for Steve Fossett would have never happened. Seems with a wilderness designation comes the restriction that planes must stay at least 2000' above the terrain least they disturb the solitude.

Doctor Robin Titus talked about being a bird watcher and mountain biker. Pleasures made possible by using the existing roads that let her get into places she'd not be able to reach in an afternoon if she were limited to using foot power. Jim O'Banion talked about fishing, the hatchery he ran, how most the lakes, streams and creeks were stocked with his fish and the places he would never be able to take his grandsons fishing if they had to walk in, a hike that in many cases would take days to reach. Tracy Wolf told us how wilderness designation would negate her ability to save the sage grouse. Without the ability to use mechanized equipment to push back the pinion/juniper encroachment they would continue to loose sage grouse habitat. Pat Murphy spoke on how the wilderness designation would negate the ability to implement pro active fire management as well reactive fire suppression. Having logged over the area to supply the mining camps of old it will take ages of managing the weed trees before the area is returned to its natural state. We listened to trappers speak on how adding this wilderness would eliminate their ability to earn a living. The recent Fur Trade Show in Fallon generated over $1,000,000 in sales. Hit that figure with your economic multiplier affect and thats a lot of cars, washing machines, refrigerators and wall-to-wall carpeting being sold. In a state where the state budget is entirely dependent on the robustness of the trade in goods and services, the loss of this revenue would be felt in our schools and other public services.

The same can be said about the mining that happens in the proposed wilderness areas, mining that dates back to heyday of Bodie, Aurora, Masonic, Pine Grove, Cumo and other historic mining camps found throughout the proposed areas. Mining has shaped this area. With the mining camps came the stage and freighting roads that connected them, the root of the road network we use today. Ranching grew to feed the mining camps. Towns followed the ranches and for generations a life style evolved that has become the envy of city folks everywhere, the ability to go out your back door and recreate be it on a dirt bike, a jeep seat, forking a saddle, with a fly pole, a rifle or a gold pan, to view the wildlife or find a geocache. While we all treasure the solitude of this backyard, we do not understand how it fits the spirit of the Wilderness Act. The only thing we do understand is there are mean spirited people who don't like the way we choose to recreate or make a living.

And then Phil Tucker stood up to speak. Seems that between himself and Emery they'd contributed $1000 in tax revenues by purchasing their OHVs. This didn't include the money spent on accessories, maintenance or the food and fuel that went with their trips into the outback. People like Phil and Emery (and me) supported 83 different northern Nevada businesses based on the sale, maintenance and hauling of OHVs, businesses employing 750 people. If this land were turned into wilderness these businesses would suffer. Less land open to motorized recreation means fewer sales. While shops like Michael's Cyclework would survive on their sale of street bikes, businesses like Testa Racing, McCoy's Off Road Center and Carson Valley Motorsports would be thrown on hard times. People would lose jobs, leading to the loss of tax revenues, leading to the reduction in trade for other goods and services, leading to further loss of tax revenues, leading to an economic downturn. This is the economic multiplier affect in reverse. And then there would be the impact on businesses like the Walker River Resort and Topaz Lake Casino, businesses that make their money on the stream of people coming from outside the area to enjoy our forms of recreation in our backyard. When it takes days to hike in and out fewer fisherman, hunters, birders will come for their afternoon or weekend of relaxation and their dollars would stay home with them. Designating nearly 700,000 acres of wilderness would create an economic disaster that would endanger our rural lifestyles. As Phil told us, there is a formalized process of designating wilderness that starts with the USFS and BLM. That process had already determined these lands did not fit the criteria for wilderness designation. There is nothing that so special or sacred about the proposed areas that justifies the end-running of that process by sneaking wilderness designation into a Land's Bill. If our Congressional Delegation will listen to we the people, we the people are telling them this is wrong. The 450 people that attended the meeting made this point crystal clear.

The following month I drove out to Smith to attend round two. This night the Nevada Wilderness Project was there to answer our questions. The meeting started with the reading of several letters. The first was from Governor Gibbons addressed to our Congressional Delegation. The letter was straight to the point. As the proposal did not have the full backing of the local governments he would not support it and requested our Congressmen not to move forward on the proposal until they had local support. Next a letter from Representative Heller was read. Heller also stated that without the blessing of local governments he would not support the inclusion of the wilderness proposal in the upcoming Land's Bill. Then an email from Senator Ensign was read. Senator Ensign also stated that without local support he would not support the inclusion of the wilderness proposal in the Land's Bill. Senator Reid had nothing to say. The Coalition for Public Access then announced that over 750 people were in attendance. In just seven weeks they had assembled a database of over 1000 people that were opposed to the Nevada Wilderness Project's proposal. The County Commissioners from Lyon County had voted unanimously to oppose the proposal. Mineral County also voted unanimously to oppose the proposal, as did Esmeralda County. We then heard from Melissa Hanely, a 14 year old from Yerington. On her own she'd come up with a simple t-shirt that said “FTWP: Fight the Wilderness Proposal”. She came with 100 t-shirts, sold them all and had orders for more. The money she'd raise was being contributed to the Pine Nut Mountains Trail Association to help fund the fight against the wilderness proposal (the money flows into the PNMTA to fall under our Non-Profit Tax status, but flows right back out to the CPA). She spoke eloquently on how the proposal, by not allowing them to use their dirt bikes, quads, 4x4s, by removing the ability to take an afternoon trip fishing, hunting or prospecting for dreams in their own backyard, they would be left with little else but drugs for recreation. She finished by turning to the audience and quoting Thomas Jefferson: 'People should not fear their government, governments should fear their people.' After listening to her speak I only hope we can do her effort justice. Today, these public lands are used by families to recreate, families that include children, parents and grandparents, the able bodied and the disabled. If these lands were designated wilderness these same families would need to go elsewhere. They would loose countless opportunities to come together as family.

Then it was the turn of the Nevada Wilderness Project to answer out questions.

The first question asked if the BLM and USFS had determined these lands were not suitable for inclusion as wilderness why did the Nevada Wilderness Project think they were suitable? They answered by simply stating they believed the Forest Service and BLM had made a mistake not designating these lands as wilderness. In their opinions the best way to manage public lands was to designate them as wilderness so they would be preserved in their pristine state for future generations. They also lectured us that Wilderness was a not a single use, but a multi use designation. A very disingenuous argument. They tried to leave us believing all types of usage would be allowed when the truth is the only multiple uses allowed (by their own words from their web site) includes the protection of watersheds that are essential for clean and abundant water, the maintenance of soil and water quality, ecological diversity, plant and animal gene pools, and habitat for wildlife, including rare and endangered species. It is a single use. It has the simple intent to keep, or return the lands in their primitive state. Next the Project was asked when did they first bring the proposal to our Congressional Delegation, and who was present at that meeting? The Project danced around this question by stating there really wasn't a proposal, it was still a work in progress and they were looking to have conversations with the local stake holders.

Then they were asked when were they planning to seek out the local stake holders to have these conversations? They answered that they had come in response to the CPA's invite. They stated they were willing to meet with individuals whenever and where ever they could. To this Emery let them know that local consensus was they must talk to us as a group, none of the stake holders were interested in individual talks or allowing the Nevada Wilderness Project use divide and conquer tactics, that we stood united in our opposition. And, as they had not really answered the question of when they were planning to seek us out the question was repeated. This time they answered with silence. I drew the conclusion they never planned to do anything but hold token meetings and rely on their hired guns to get what they wanted into the Land's Bill by meeting with our Congressional Delegation back in Washington.

The next question was, since you are still working on your proposal, when do you plan to submit your proposal to our Congressional Delegation? They answered by stating they did not have a set time line in which to finish the plan, that it would be done when it was done. Then they were asked to explain what defines an appropriate wilderness area. They said a wilderness could be defined in many different ways, that it did not always follow that wilderness needed to be pristine and untouched by man, it may be defined by nothing more than an area where it might be possible to find solitude (by that definition nearly every acre of public land would qualify). Then they were asked what management problems were they trying to solve by proposing this wilderness? They answered that they were troubled by the increasing amount of motorized recreation that was occurring in these areas. They did not consider this to be proper use of their public lands. Next they were asked if they were wanting to work with local stake holders, and if the local stake holders could not be convinced to accept a compromise, would they drop their proposal? Their answer was a brusque no! Even if the stake holders did not agree with the proposal they had the right to advocate what they believed in. And there we had it.

On their web site the Nevada Wilderness Project takes great pains to describe how they work with local stake holders to craft their wilderness campaigns, but yet they had made little to no attempt to work with the stake holders in Lyon, Mineral Esmeralda and Douglas Counties. To read their web site the only stake holders they had worked with were themselves and like minded people. When invited to explain the details of their proposal they told that it was still a work in progress and they did not have any details to share. Any questions about the details would need to be addressed to our Congressional Delegation that would be writing the Land's Bill. They were not ready to share a date when their proposal would be ready for local stake holders to review. They were willing to meet with us on an individual basis to work out a compromise on the details that did not exist, but shied away from meeting with us as a group. While they were willing to talk with us once we asked them to come explain their proposal, they were not willing to do the footwork to seek out local stake holders. They respected our right to voice our opinions and hold public discussions, but defended their right to ignore us. They talk of working for a significant number of like-minded Nevadans, yet their three spokesmen came from from Alaska, Colorado and Reno. Nearly a third of their membership is from outside Nevada, and the greatest number comes from Reno, most likely employees of Patagonia, REI, Friends of Nevada Wilderness and other members of the Nevada Wilderness Coalition. They are not representative of the overwhelming majority of the stake holders. They are representative of a very small minority. We are told their strategy is to ask for more wilderness than they want so as to compromise by giving us back land. The message from the CPA, the citizens of Lyon, Mineral and Esmerelda Counties is a loud, we won't compromise. No Wilderness, period, end of discussion.

Our locally elected officials have all stated they are against this proposal. With one noticeable exception our Congressional Delegation, our Governor have stated that without local backing they are not willing to entertain the Nevada Wilderness Project's proposal. Senator Reid is that one exception. In the April 7th edition of the Reno Gazette Journal Reid was quoted as saying, "We'll get them on board, or we won't do it. Sen. Ensign and I have other places to look. There are 17 counties, and we've only dealt with three of them." Sounds like he is catching on. And,like a little kid cutting of his nose to spite his face Reid has said if we wont accept his wilderness then he will take his lands bill someplace else. He says there are 17 other counties, but you know that tells us he is still having trouble listening as Mineral and Esmeralda are also rejecting any wilderness proposals so there are only has 15. Senator Ensign was correct in saying that putting the wilderness proposal aside, a Land's Bill is a good thing. While Ensign is willing to work with the local stake holders Senator Reid is not willing to write a Land's Bill without a wilderness proposal. He went on to say we were being emotional. That like gun control you were either for or against wilderness. The implication being that if we were against the wilderness proposal we were every bit as morally wrong as those folks that are against gun control and I am offended by that tone in the Senator's statement. I think Dr. Titus had it right when she said come 2010 we should tell the good Senator that while he may be from Nevada, but he is not for Nevada and it is time we fired him.

And I think this will be my letter to our Congressional Delegation, Governor Gibbons, my representatives in the Nevada Assembly and Senate and the Douglas County Commissioners. I am opposed to the Nevada Wilderness Project's proposal. I do not believe this land fits the criteria to be declared wilderness. I believe the only reason the Nevada Wilderness Project is making this proposal is because they don't agree with how the land is being used today. I believe they will not be satisfied until 100% of our public lands are designated as wilderness. For them this is a religious crusade. They believe the only valid use of USFS and BLM lands is to manage them as pristine wilderness and they believe they have been empowered by a higher authority with the right to ram this belief down out throats without public debate, discussion or vote. I challenge the NWP to prove me wrong. I don't think they can. After listening to them for tap dance for two hours I believe the only reason for their proposal is their belief that real multi use is morally wrong. I thank Ensign, Heller and Gibbons for remembering their role as our public servants and for sticking up for our right of the majority to have the determining say in this. To Senator Reid I'll say it's high time that he remember that he is nothing more than a lowly public servant for the state of Nevada and its high time that he get off his high horse and pay attention to his job.

Tahoe Cleanup
Sara Thompson, Tahoe Daily Tribune, November 16, 2007

Off-roaders back in driver's seat?
Michael Gardner, COPLEY NEWS SERVICE, October 22, 2007