The following article ran in Las Vegas CityLife on May 2, 2008.
Oh, no. Not ... wilderness!
In some rural Nevada counties, saying the dreaded "w" word drives people, well, wild
by ANDREW KIRALY
SOUTHERN LYON COUNTY
is home to rolling hills, riparian meadows and 9,400-foot Wovoka, an
alpine mountain that hosts ancient petroglyphs and archeological sites.
Black bears roam the surrounding Pine Grove Hills.
But it's not wilderness.
To
the west are the Sweetwater Mountains, home to East Sister Peak, where
an intrepid hiker who scales the 10,400-foot mountain is rewarded with
amazing views of the Sierra Nevada.
But that's not wilderness either.
Not
according to the Lyon County Board of Commissioners, which unanimously
passed a resolution March 20 that rejected designating anything in its
county as wilderness. Neighbor Mineral County did the same a few weeks
earlier. Esmeralda County followed suit. Wilderness shmilderness,
county officials say.
"We just decided enough is enough," says Lyon County Commissioner Phyllis Hunewill. "You just can't work with these people."
YOU KNOW, THESE PEOPLE
"These
people" she's referring to are activists with the Nevada Wilderness
Project and Friends of Nevada Wilderness, groups that were hoping to
get chunks of Lyon, Mineral and Esmeralda counties designated as
wilderness as part of a federal lands bill that, only a few months ago,
had prospects of being passed this year. That was until
miscommunication, paranoia and fear took over, and sent the three
counties into a veritable revolt against what they saw as eco-intruders
scheming to steal their land with the help of the federal government.
The
case of the Great Lyon-Mineral-Esmeralda County Wilderness Freak Out is
instructive to consider from the vantage point of Las Vegas. Here in
Southern Nevada, the foes of wilderness are usually developers and
casinos. Beyond the booming valley and well into the rurals, however,
it's mining and livestock interests -- mixed in with a hefty dose of
anti-government sentiment.
"I'll be honest and say a lot of it
is that the public doesn't trust the wilderness people or the
congressional delegation where a land bill is concerned," says Jim
Sanford. The longtime resident of Yerington (in Lyon County) and former
publisher of the Mason Valley News spoke against creating wilderness.
"This
process was just odd in that so much fear and misinformation got out,
and the amount of emotion was surprising," says Shaaron Netherton,
executive director of Friends of Nevada Wilderness. "We've been
[working on federal land bills] for eight years in other counties, and
this just kind of surprised us."
The end result of this culture
clash between cowtown residents and conservationists: A dead lands bill
that could have both helped rural economies and preserved sensitive
land -- and a congressional delegation left scratching its head.
AND THEY'RE SURPRISED?
Since
the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act of 1998, Nevada's
congressional delegation has more or less been hopping from county to
county, passing customized lands bills that are a sort of grab-bag for
every interest: Some federal land is sold to developers to spur
economic development and generate cash for education and local pork
projects; meanwhile, other land is set aside as wilderness for
everything from hiking to hunting. Clark County got its lands bill in
2002. Lincoln County got its lands bill in 2004. White Pine got its
lands bill in 2006. The idea is to eventually hit all of Nevada's 17
counties, trimming the federal government's land holdings, giving
communities an economic booster shot and preserving natural areas from
irresponsible use. In all of these cases, groups such as the Nevada
Wilderness Project were at the table to push for preservation.
"We've
got a track record where we've done this in three counties, in urban
counties and rural counties," says Nevada Wilderness Project Director
John Wallin. "I think no matter what the fearmongering is, we're
credible. We've been good partners with people because we're not
strident and we're not ideological about this stuff. We're pragmatists.
We believe in the legitimate economic needs of these communities, and
that's why we participate in this process. So this notion that we're
trying to shut people out and shut them down is just silly."
WHEN NATURE ATTACKS
Things
went awry when it was Lyon, Mineral and Esmeralda counties' turn at the
trough. After the congressional delegation started the lands bill
process in June 2007, it didn't take long for things to go sideways.
Some county folks suspected the lands bill was an elaborate water grab;
others saw the wilderness advocates as the prime movers behind the
thing.
"The reason for [local resistance] is that this proposal
came out of the blue. It wasn't like it was generated locally and taken
to the commissioners," says Sanford. "We feel like the process was
reversed and it came out like, 'Here's the proposal, we're gonna do it
like this or nothing. And if we have to shove it down your throat,
that's what we'll do.' The process was ass-backwards."
What
inflamed that perception was that Nevada Wilderness Project and Friends
of Nevada Wilderness put together a map that comprised their wilderness
wish list for Lyon, Mineral and Esmeralda counties. It contained a
perhaps ambitious 700,000 acres of proposed wilderness. But it was an
initial proposal, not an ultimatum, says Nevada Wilderness Project's
Wallin.
"We threw some information out there, and instead of
looking at it as a conversation-starter, it very quickly got
misrepresented as this land grab," he says. And the so-called land grab
outraged locals. A March 5 meeting with representatives for U.S. Sens.
Reid and Ensign and U.S. Rep. Dean Heller at Smith Valley High School
in Lyon County drew 700 people in opposition to the wilderness
proposal. A meeting a week later in Mineral County drew 200. For them,
"wilderness" translates into hamstringing local economies that have
long been based on mining, livestock and off-roading.
"People
don't realize how much mines contribute to the elements they use in
everyday life," says Commissioner Hunewill. "And grazers have been here
for 100 years, using those lands. People in Las Vegas don't understand
this is an agricultural community. I know [wilderness activists] say
you can still graze [on lands designated as wilderness], but I know
people who from experience have found out that it's not as easy to
continue grazing in a [wilderness] area as they would like to believe."
THEY CAME FROM BEYOND
Further
fueling the resentment was the perception that the wilderness activists
were do-gooders from outside the county, without a clue about the real
lay of the land.
"These guys from Nevada Wilderness ... one's
from Reno, the other gentleman is from Durango, Colo., and a third is
from Alaska," says Sanford. "We look at that and say, 'What the hell
are they doing telling us what to do in Nevada? You can do what you
want in Colorado or Alaska, but you don't know nothing about Nevada.'"
But
there were also plenty of people Lyon County who supported some kind of
wilderness preservation, counters Steve Pellegrini, a fifth-generation
Yerington resident.
"A lot more were for it than anyone
realized," says Pellegrini, a biology teacher. "I'd like to say it was
a silent majority. From my perspective, a lot of good people were
misled. Somebody would say [with a wilderness designation], there'd be
no hunting anymore, then someone would say something else. It was just
a big scare game, misconception after misconception. How wilderness
became such a lightning rod, I don't know."
The baby soon
followed the bath water. The Lyon County Commission followed up April
17 with another resolution. This one asked Reid, Ensign and Heller to
drop the whole Lyon County lands bill idea. It may have killed the
county's opportunity to get money from a sell-off of federal land, but
it hasn't stopped wilderness activists, who are now considering other
strategies to protect lands in these rural counties.
Wallin says the problem isn't with wilderness, it's with bad leadership at the county level.
"I
don't really understand what the confusion is when they've initiated
the federal lands bill process twice with the delegation, knowing that
wilderness was going to be part of the equation, and then they kind of
set themselves up for failure by stoking the flames of misinformation."
|