Two Cents Worth: Government takes care of its own, not the public

One hundred percent of American citizens wish their government was more open and transparent. But, only 20 percent believe it actually is--down from 44 percent a year ago.

Those of us involved in the lands bill, wilderness and Walker River/Walker Lake water issues know for sure there has been little openness and no transparency, despite pledges from our Congressional delegation to the contrary. All we get are bits and pieces, and only what they want us to hear. The idea of our government actually listening to public input is a myth.

We've won nothing

Comments were heard that "we won the battle" last week when Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons sent the Congressional delegation a letter opposing any lands bill or federal legislation "that is not a result of local coordination, cooperation, and support."

But that assumption is so wrong. The Governor cannot tell any Senator or Congressman what to do; and those federal elected officials consistently, and continually, disregard what state officials have to say.

We have "won" absolutely nothing. We remain behind the 8-ball and Senators Reid and Ensign and Congressman Heller will do whatever they wish regarding these issues that are so important to all of us because they actually affect us. Those deep-pocketed environmental groups back East don't care about us; and we have too few votes to halt much of anything.

Representatives from the Nevada Congressional delegation have certainly "heard" what we've had to say, but we are still told there will be wilderness designations in the Lyon-Mineral Lands Bill, as well as a federally-mandated resolution (written by Reid's people).

Government cannot get over its belief that it knows what is best for us. We elected these people.

Deck stacked on recall

The deck is really stacked against us when it comes to recalling U.S. Senators and Congresspeople. State law does not allow it, and provides no way to do it. Impeachment is the only avenue, with the House serving as prosecutor and the Senate as judge and jury. Fat chance of impeaching someone as powerful as Harry Reid.

But, even discussion, and the actual inquiry with the Nevada Secretary of State's Office about recalling the Senator, shows just how strongly some Nevadans no longer think he represents us. Recent statewide approval polls show the same thing. All this should send a message to Mr. Reid that he needs to start listening again. Still, he most likely has his head so high in the clouds he fails to recognize the problem.

Senator Reid has fallen victim to the same affliction that attacks many longtime politicians: he actually believes he, and only he, knows what is best for his constituents; therefore, there is not need to listen.

NWP hurting Wovoka idea

Local supporters of a much smaller Wovoka wilderness area (around 88,000 acres at Bald Mountain in South Lyon) are not supporting the expanded Nevada Wilderness Project proposal for 289,000 acres.

In fact, the expanded proposal is actually "hurting" the local effort. Spokesmen Art Shipley and Steve Pellegrini went on record on Davey Fulstone's KSVL radio show Tuesday as advocating only their own Wovoka plan and offered no support for the NWP.

Representatives from the Nevada Wilderness Project are scheduled to appear at Wednesday's (April 2) Smith Valley Advisory Council meeting at Smith Valley High School at 7:00 p.m. Will 500 people attend again? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Don't be too surprised, either, if NWP shows up offering to reduce the size of its proposal. It's an old trick to make us believe we have won something, when in fact, they are reducing the proposal to exactly what they wanted in the first place.

Interestingly enough, a report says a total of six people attended a recent NWP meeting in Reno--not quite the 500 out here.

Readers' comments on wilderness

A great number of readers have offered their own comments on the wilderness proposals, and the range of those comments is amazing and shows a tremendous grasp of the issue. If you thought most opponents would simply provide weak arguments, or display a lack of knowledge about the issue, you'd be way wrong.

Take a few minutes to read these comments. You might even use some of them when contacting our Congressional delegation and others with your opposition to this NWP wilderness proposal:

* This is nothing more than a back door attempt to add additional wilderness without regard to policies, principles, procedures, and requirements set forth in the Wilderness Act of 1964.

* To proceed with this proposal would be tantamount to encouraging a form of wilderness extortion, where, in order to appease wilderness advocates, additional wilderness is created as a quid quo pro for selling public land.

* Isn't there some other alternative, like a roadless designation or making people stay on existing roads that would work better than a restrictive wilderness designation? We all know pledges will be made at the outset, but then fear those will be changed over time.

* Wilderness laws are often written with the best of intentions, but the interpretation of those laws is often different. We have to deal in reality, and even though the law says grazing will not be halted, the fact is it is being halted in other wilderness areas.

* In 1973, the Tourism Commission for Nevada ran public service articles in newspapers promoting back roads and giving suggested places for people to go. In 1986, the USFS reviewed these same areas and said it did not have the "capability" to be designated wilderness. What makes them capable now, after 20 more years of use by man?

*There are approximately 2.9-million acres of wilderness in Nevada. How much is enough?

* These areas, for the most part, have had a time-honored tradition of multi-use access, meaning they can be accessed by mechanical means. That includes 4-wheel drive, ATV, mountain bike, dirt bike, or even the old-fashioned four-legged conveyance of a horse or mule.

* Much of the areas being proposed for designation as wilderness are not pristine and have not been pristine since before the time people arrived in the state in the early 1850s.

* Congress has long promoted the multiple-use management of our public lands. This philosophy has been reaffirmed time and time again. It is sound public policy and has served the needs of our nation and our citizens well.

* A Nevada concurrent resolution, in 2003, said Congress designated approximately 2 million acres of certain federal public lands in Nevada as wilderness. Isn't that enough?

* A wilderness designation to such a large area would change everything, and instead of public land usage for many recreational and agricultural usages, it would be limited to a few hearty souls who wish to recreate in a primeval fashion.

* This proposal would take a tremendous number of acres that can, today, be enjoyed by all and limit the use to a very small segment of society. It would also adversely affect the economic future of Lyon and Mineral Counties, if for no other reason than that the withdrawal of public lands proposed here would take away from mineral entry and any hope of future economic growth.

* The expansion of the proposed wilderness areas in Lyon and Mineral Counties is obviously the result of lobbying by private groups.

* Once an area is designated as wilderness, that designation cannot be reversed.

* Our Congressional delegation comes to us saying, "We want to help you," while at the same time, they are saying we have to accept something that is clearly inappropriate to our needs or circumstances.

* This wilderness proposal for South Lyon includes two areas just south of Dayton (Rawe Peak and Lyon Peak), so people in that area should be concerned as well.

*Nevada publishes a road map annually, and it has used "Wide Open" on the front of it for years now. I hope we will all be able to help Nevada stay "Wide Open" for many years to come.

* A wilderness designation alone would curtail 90% of the usage in the proposed areas.

* Wood cutting would not be permitted. Aircraft fly-overs would be severely limited,0 and no landings would be permitted (except perhaps by helicopter in a life-or-death situation).

* The historical and cultural resource capability of those areas has not ever been full explored.

* This wilderness proposal is strongly opposed by local citizens, yet the opinions of the locals have been ignored. Several areas have never been assessed for wilderness criteria or suitability; some clearly do not meet the definition of wilderness.

* The latest wilderness proposal is outside the regular process used by the U.S. Forest Service.

* Permitted grazing of livestock would be open until the last grazing permit expires with the death of the rancher just as in the Desolation Wilderness of California. The rules change with time.

* Most of the area outlined has been used and reused for so many years now, it simply does not qualify.

*The representatives from our congressional delegation continue to claim the wilderness proposal is not their's but is a proposal only by the Nevada Wilderness Project. But, a spokesperson for that group said in a newspaper article that trying to complete the Lyon-Mineral lands bill by the end of 2008 is a timetable set by that same delegation.

* Has a study been done about the social and economic impact for the area which would encompass land usage in parts of Wilson Canyon, the Sweetwater Mountains, the Pine Grove Range and also include parts of the popular Desert Creek are and the Excelsior/Long Valley and Gabbs Valley range?

* I have never been anti-environmental, but there has to be some sense of reason to a proposal. In this present case, it clearly is not reasonable because there simply is not any area in Lyon and Mineral that they're seeking that hasn't been first worked over by prospectors and more recently explored by historians and off-road vehicles.

* This is a matter of environmentalists acquiring power to do as they please. With every inch they add to their program, they become that much more powerful than ordinary citizens. And, elected officials listen only to them.

* The Coalition for Public Access is a good "local" idea and perhaps should partner with the Blue Ribbon Coalition to battle this proposal.

* Is it true existing grazing permits would be "grandfathered" in but once those permits expired, new permits would not be issued?

* How would the Forest Service or BLM ever enforce laws in the huge areas in this proposal?

* Our congressional delegation is clearly out of touch with rural Nevada and the communities that exist here, particularly when 3 counties have said NO to wilderness under any circumstances.

* These guys are trying to use this wilderness designation to close out land that is currently being enjoyed by hundreds of off-roach enthusiasts.

* A retired ranger with the Bridgeport Ranger district recently told me he would categorize only two places in Lyon and Mineral counties that he believed matched the legal definition of wilderness. That makes the closure of those roads and places unconscionable.

* The present battles being waged are about limiting the right of residents to the continued use (as in multiple use) of areas that are not pristine, that do not meet the definition of wilderness assigned by the U.S. Congress in 1964.

* The alarm felt by the citizens of these counties is understandable in light of the fact that (1) the counties are being given only a very short period of time in which to respond to Nevada's congressional delegation; and (2) because we have seen other Nevada counties get the shaft through this process of "negotiation and compromise".

* The multiple use areas falling within this proposed designation have been used for a variety of purposes since the discovery of gold and silver at the now gone town of Aurora.

* We will all have to live with the consequences that will be the result of the delegation's failure to listen to us. Senators Reid and Ensign and Congressman Heller will have to live with the result of our votes when they run for reelection.

* Man gets the very least consideration when it comes to restrictions in a wilderness area.

* If an area has many established trails, roads, service roads, power lines, etc. (imprint of man's work) then this area would not qualify as a potential wilderness area. Wilson Canyon area has many, many, many roads and trails all over your proposed wilderness area.

* Somebody obviously found a map that does not include the legal established trails and roads that are there so they can try to get around the definition of wilderness.

Sen. Reid is the one we have to worry about. He tried to tell me that land disposal is good for OHV and the public. Huh? Private property is private. We need a lot more details about any land swap that may be pending in Lyon County.