ENVIRONMENT:

On Gold Butte, a tug of war between access, protection

Plan to give area strict federal protection would also shut many out, critics say

Nick Dobric / friends of Gold Butte

A petroglyph panel known as “Newspaper Rock” is among the areas in Gold Butte, near Mesquite, for which conservationists have pushed legislators to pass protections.

By Phoebe Sweet

Wed, Nov 12, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Brian Beffort/Friends of Gold Butte

The colorful sandstone formations near Whitney Pockets in Gold Butte entice visitors to camp and explore.

Reader poll

Like their cattle on BLM land, family of ranchers stands firm

Letter: Protect precious Gold Butte region (10-3-2008)
Letter: Gold Butte deserves federal protection (6-9-2008)

To get close to the copper-colored rocks of Gold Butte and the 1,000-year-old petroglyphs etched on them, it takes not only four-wheel drive, but a sturdy set of hiking shoes.

And that’s the way Gold Butte enthusiasts want to keep it.

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, who visited Gold Butte for the first time in August, introduced legislation in late September to make the back country near Mesquite a national conservation and wilderness area. Her spokesman said the visit to what locals call “the Red Rock of Mesquite” won her over.

Indeed, for the first-time visitor, each turn on the bumpy dirt roads brings new visual wonders – a 100-year-old mining camp, rare plant species, mountains that dare you to climb them.

With the wilderness bill, Berkley, a Democrat, answered a call from conservation groups.

Wilderness advocates have celebrated a string of victories in this decade, which has seen more than 3 million acres of wilderness and national conservation areas designated in Nevada, including an old growth Joshua tree forest, parts of Red Rock National Conservation Area, Sloan Canyon, more of Mount Charleston and two small areas in Gold Butte, near Mesquite. But advocates said there was more to be done, including pushing for more protection around Gold Butte, an area 65 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Off-road vehicles and vandals carrying out artifacts and leaving behind graffiti were moving faster than the federal government, John Wallin, director of the Nevada Wilderness Project, said at the time. Gold Butte needed the extra resources and enforcement efforts that would come with a conservation area or wilderness designation.

But that designation rarely comes without controversy.

Republican Congressman Jon Porter’s staffers shopped the proposal around for months to the rural communities near Gold Butte that are part of his district. While they did that, they asked the Nevada Wilderness Project and Friends of Gold Butte to keep private the pitch for a 360,000-acre conservation area that would include 220,000 acres of strictly protected wilderness.

Then, after the town advisory board in Bunkerville said it opposed the proposal, Porter’s office abandoned it.

So Wallin and his group took the idea to Berkley’s office, and she introduced the legislation Sept. 26. Spokesman David Cherry said the bill is not likely to be considered until next year and may change with input from rural communities before then.

Although some foes of the wilderness designation have criticized Berkley for proposing legislation to designate a wilderness and conservation area in Porter’s district, Cherry said introducing the legislation was an effort to get the public involved and start the discussion about how to improve the proposal.

“People misinterpret the bill,” said Tom Collins, a Clark County commissioner and Democrat who represents the Gold Butte area and parts of Mesquite. “Congress is going to make sure the local folks have complete input into this thing before anything is passed.”

Representatives of the rural communities near Gold Butte would make up about half of a committee in charge of creating the conservation area’s management plan.

The main objection to the wilderness designation is that vehicle access to the area would be limited.

The wilderness designation prohibits off-road use of any kind of vehicle, including all-terrain vehicles, bikes, wheelchairs and everything in between. It allows camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding and other uses, though.

Doug Nielsen, a freelance writer and outdoorsman, says although areas of Gold Butte certainly need protection, the wilderness designation is overly restrictive.

“We have gone from a place where we could feel free to move about ... to an area where if I don’t have the right pass I can’t go there,” he said. “And it’s all publicly owned land.”

Limiting vehicle access to existing roads, Nielsen said, would prevent all but the youngest and strongest of visitors from getting close enough to Gold Butte to enjoy it.

“A wilderness designation is the most strict land use outside of military that you can come up with,” he said. “You can still get in there if you’re young, or in great shape ... But if you’re an average American and you would like to go see that country and there is already an existing road or trail there, why does that have to be closed off to them?”

The bill neither closes nor opens any roads, however. A Bureau of Land Management plan 10 years in the making, however, will preserve 480 miles of existing rough roads and close another 90 miles. The remaining roads, many of which require a sturdy four-wheel-drive vehicle, will not be improved under either the BLM management plan or the wilderness and conservation bill.

Off-roading, in fact, is already prohibited in the area, since it’s been identified as prime desert tortoise habitat. But that restriction hasn’t been enforced to the degree that it would be under a wilderness area designation, conservationists say.

The additional 132,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat that Berkley’s bill would effectively create would help Clark County comply with the Endangered Species Act, Clark County Manager Virginia Valentine has noted. And, because the county has an agreement with the federal government to protect habitat for threatened or endangered species while allowing development elsewhere, if the Gold Butte proposal wins approval, that would allow more development elsewhere in the county.

That’s just more bad news for Nielsen and other Clark County residents who would prefer to have the run of wide open spaces, a preference squelched, to varying degrees, not only by new neighborhoods but by the amount of land in the county that is consumed by the military, a wildlife refuge, conservation areas and recreation areas.

Wilderness areas currently make up only 4.8 percent of Nevada’s land area, according to Nick Dobric, Southern Nevada outreach director for the Wilderness Project. If this latest bill passes, 5.1 percent of Nevada will be designated wilderness. But 87 percent of Nevada land is federally owned, including the 67 percent of the state managed by the BLM.

In fact, conservationists say protecting Gold Butte may attract visitors, rather than scaring them away, and advancing the legislation walks a fine line between promotion and protection.

While gathering support for the conservation proposal by extolling Gold Butte’s virtues, the area’s most ardent fans also want to protect its more vulnerable natural and historic features.

Nancy Hall, president of Friends of Gold Butte, which worked with the Wilderness Project on the bill, said visitors are coming anyway, whether the area is protected or not, and it will be increasingly important to educate them about treading softly while they’re there.

“It’s a double-edged sword. It’s still difficult for me to take people to certain places, and there are just some places I wouldn’t take somebody,” Hall said. “You don’t want anyone else to know about it, but you can’t get anything else done unless you tell.”

Discussion: 18 comments so far…

By BringtheRain

11/12/08 at 7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Las Vegans are being squeezed by a federal anaconda, closing tighter and tighter around them. Name five new campgrounds opened in the last 20 years near Las Vegas (and don't count the one at Red Rock, that replaced a different one that closed). Name two new paved scenic drives on federal land.

1.3 million people have moved in since 1990, and all they've gotten as their release valve is a bunch of new wilderness. That doesn't help improve the quality of life.

The feds should be improving access and opportunities in places like Gold Butte, Desert NWR, the western Spring Mountains and the Kingston Range ... not cutting them off.
By lovestoroam

11/12/08 at 10:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

We have lived in the Las Vegas area for 13 years. Until we bought a trailer and an ATV 2 years ago our ability to explore the surronding area was extremely limited. We discovered Gold Butte last summer and it is now our favorite area to visit. Yes there are places that need to be protected but Gold Butte is a huge area. If it becomes a highly restricted area as is the trend in Nevada, we will no longer be able to enjoy the area or expose our out of state friends to the beauty of the desert! My husband and I are unable to hike the miles it would take to see and enjoy the best parts of the area. I believe people like me with limited ablilty to hike the miles I did in my youth should not be forgotten as we explore the best way to preserve this fabulous area.
By Cedar

11/12/08 at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Congresswoman Berkley deserves a lot of credit for stepping up to the plate when Porter was not willing. I am part of the majority of residents in Clark County who favor protecting more places as wilderness. Red Rock Canyon is currently designated as a NCA and wilderness and there is a plethora of recreational access - while at the same time balancing the conservation needs. Gold Butte also needs these additional protections before its too late.
By BLNV

11/12/08 at 11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Number one, an NCA could improve facilities and visitation opportunities. There are no facilities or information available on site at this time. As for ATV and motorized recreation the article states the BLM has designated 480 miles of open routes in the area. How many miles of roads are needed to satisfy your adventures in the desert? Going off the road is extremely damaging to the desert, in many places the damage to the soil will not heal in our lifetime.
I too have reached the age I can't hike as many miles I would like. But, I want the generation of young people today and of tomorrow to be able to discover wild places, culture, and nature as I was able to in my day.
The time to protect Gold Butte is now; include managed motorized recreation and promote other types of recreation such as hiking, picnicking, cultural and wildlife studies, and camping. Not just promoting 4 wheeling and ATV recreation.
By BringtheRain

11/12/08 at 11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cedar - Where are the recreational opportunities?

I can hike Pine Creek Canyon at Red Rock for the 50th time.

I can go for a bone-jarring drive up Mormon Well Road through Desert NWR.

I can drive 2 hours to Death Valley, 3 hours to Zion, 4 hours to Pioche or 5 hours to Sedona. (Oh wait! I can't afford to with the price of gas.)

I can try to get a campsite reservation at Furance Creek -- wait, no, full -- Watchman -- wait, no, full -- ooh, scenic, serene Cottonwood Cove, there's an option.

Part of the problem of Las Vegas is the lack of recreational opportunities in the vicinity. The vast majority of people do not want to go on week-long hikes through the wilderness. They want a nice compromise between ease of access and lack of crowds. The current system -- jammed Red Rock, Lake Mead, Mt. Charleston and empty, inaccessible quarters in all other directions -- doesn't work.
By BLNV

11/12/08 at 11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Perhaps Bringtherain is on to a really good point. Gold Butte should be designated a National Park. That will bring more funding, protect the resources on the ground and add facilities for visitation and education.
Gold Butte National Park!
By BringtheRain

11/12/08 at 11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

The sad politics of federal lands -- the money comes with National Park status. A better option may be to expand Parashant National Monument into Nevada and place it under full NPS control.
By Cedar

11/12/08 at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

BringtheRain, refer to BLNV previous comment about facilities and roads. 480 miles of roads - the length of Nevada is about that long, how much road do you need? If things aren't controlled out there all the cool hikes are just going to be roads and the wide open feel is diminishing with every new motorized route. You should head out there sometime and see for yourself whats actually on the ground.
By BringtheRain

11/12/08 at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Many of those roads are glorified trails in themselves, inaccessible to the casual recreator. How about a picnic area? A campsite? A paved road to Gregg Basin and a boat launch? A bridge connecting to Meadview?

They should be thinking about more access, not less. No other city in America has less recreation options in the immediate vicinity, which is particularly a crime given how much Las Vegas has within a medium distance (14 national parks accessible for a weekend trip.)
By PhoebeSweet (Staff)

11/12/08 at 5:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

I would beg to differ with those of you who think, as BringtheRain said, that "no other city in America has (fewer) recreation options."
Actually, Las Vegas was ranked No. 1 by National Geographic Adventure magazine for outdoor recreation. The city has more "outdoor action within a 200-mile (322-kilometer) radius than any other major town in the nation."
Here's the link to the article: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/advent...
Thanks to all of you for reading!
By BringtheRain

11/13/08 at 12:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Phoebe - I agree the long-distance options are numerous. That's great for people who have the time, and inclination, to throw gas in their tank and drive 3 hours to go somewhere else. In this time of year especially, Las Vegans need weekend trip options that don't involve driving until 10 p.m. on a Friday after they get home from work after 6.

For those people, there are three choices -- Mt. Charleston, Red Rock and Lake Mead.

Meanwhile, there are other options out there, but they're underdeveloped (see Wheeler Pass, Windy Point/Packsaddle campgrounds, Mojave National Preserve) or difficult to access (Lincoln County mountains, Desert NWR, and, yes, the Gold Butte area).

There are places worth protecting, and most of them are protected -- the Death Valley backcountry, the Arizona Strip, many of the sky islands of the Mojave and Great Basin.

Washington and the BLM keep sending Las Vegans new wildernesses to stay out of. When was the last time we got a new recreation area from Washington -- a new release valve for our urban pressures?
By KDR81

11/13/08 at 7:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Want to protect the land? Sell it.

Stop the environmentalist tyrants who want to eliminate everyone's enjoyment of th great out doors.
By johnevegas

11/13/08 at 7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

KDR "Stop the environmentalist tyrants who want to eliminate everyone's enjoyment of th great out doors."

I doubt that is their motivation. I can't think of one reason why they would be motivated to stop everyone's enjoyment. I think it's more likely that they are doing exactly what they say they are doing, trying to protect the environment.
By BLNV

11/13/08 at 8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

I don't think I am an environmentalist, but I like to hike, bird watch, study petroglyphs, and listen to silence. That is why I want to see wilderness in Gold Butte. It will balance out the 480 miles of roads the ATVers' need to play.
By KDR81

11/13/08 at 8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Like I said, if they want to protect the environment they need to sell it. Private property is protected better than government owned property.

If they make the government land inaccessible to others then yes they have eliminated our ability to enjoy the land.

Government owned property also allows them to pass of the cost of their political preference to other people.

That is morally wrong.

They aren't willing to pay to save the environment, they want everyone else to do it for them. SO yes, they're little tyrants.
By BringtheRain

11/13/08 at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

The problem isn't the general wilderness designation -- again, much of this land is hard to get to anyway. Odds were slim any of us were ever going to see it.

The problem is -- no new roads. No improved roads. No better access for anyone other than the owner of a sturdy 4WD. Gold Butte is on my long list of places that I started to go to, only to get turned around because I wasn't confident my 2WD pickup could handle it. I'd love to go out there some day. But under this plan, I never will.

Who, exactly, are they preserving this land for? As Nielsen said -- young people willing to hike across miles of desert.

And the rest of us get another day at Red Rock.
By Geezer

11/14/08 at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Good story. Just one correction: wheelchairs are not prohibited in wilderness. This is spelled out in BLM's regulations 43 CFR 6302.17: "When may I use a wheelchair in BLM wilderness? If you have a disability that requires the use of a wheelchair, you may use a wheelchair in a wilderness. Consistent with the Wilderness Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12207), BLM is not required to facilitate such use by building any facilities or modifying any conditions of lands within a wilderness area." I'm not using a wheelchair yet myself, but I'm nearing 70 and the day will come. Let's keep these lands wild for young and old.
By orbil777

12/30/08 at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Most folks may not be aware of the fact that camping and hiking on BLM managed land is almost limitless. BLM manages 67% of the land in Nevada in which recreational opportunities abound. The BLM has the most laxed regulations of land use of all the land managment agencies. With the exception of NCAs and Wilderness Areas you are free to do as you please. Ofcourse there are some rules, such as stay on designated routes and some fire restrictions but I dont imaging that those are to difficult or taxing to abide by. The way I see it, if you want to find a nice remote place to camp you need to walk to it. I understand that not all folks possess the physical capacities to do this but we cant build highways for everyone and disregard the effects and damages to the environment for the sake of few.
For BringtheRain, drive to Whitney Pockets, with a map, and hike from there. If you can't do this, Im sorry, but youll have to do with pictures and stories. Too many roads have fragmented species habitat and diminished greatly core populations and habitats. It's time to mitigate our past mistakes.