Sue Silver, Mineral County Liaison for the Coalition for Public Access, responded to Andrew Kiraly’s recent article on Wilderness efforts in Nevada:
The Nevada Wilderness Project overplayed its hand and underestimated the will of the ordinary Nevadan. They offer us NOTHING and want only to TAKE. If they thought we’d lie down and let them hike all over us, they have another thing coming.
Read her letter in its entirety here at Las Vegas CityLife.
I feel sorry for her, she seems so angry, and her facts are a bit off as well. I can understand the surprise factor, the fear of change and what that change might bring. However the short-sightness and the selfishness I find inexcusable. It too bad because a lands bill could really be a win win for all the folks in Mineral County and for the rest of us.
Ms. Silver please go Outside spend the night underneath the Mineral County sky, look at the stars and think about your grandkids, and by the time the peaks turn red with the first rays of the morning light perhaps your heart will be a little softer, and if you listen very close, you might just hear the call of the Wild.
The movie “Soylent Green” comes to mind when I read letters like these. I don’t know why….oh yeah, the part when the old man wants to die, and walks into the building to be strapped down and see the beautiful places he saw as a boy. Something that the younger generation never saw. Great movie!
Those of us who have lived in rural Nevada for generations understand this beautiful land very well. We also understand that creating wildrness areas where they do not exist, per the Wilderness Act of 1964, will only take away the access our families have enjoyed for decades. We also understand that once a “wilderness” designation is applied to a piece of land there is no going back, and no compromise. Multiple Use has served the residents of rural Nevada very well, and has allowed EVERYONE to enjoy our wonderful PUBLIC lands.
I am one of the “locals” enviornmental groups look down on, however, we are not crazy one issue red necks who are out of touch with reality! We live in rural Nevada, and every day we enjoy and live in the reality the wilderness fanatics want to eliminate. Wilderness designation of our PUBLIC lands is not the answer, it is the nightmare we do not want to see happen.
I also am rural to the core, and have lived 90% of my 72 years in very small rural communities scattered over the west.while following my heart and a career with the US Forest Service. I know very well how self-rightous enviros can be a real pain in the butt. However, they do get some things right.
We now live in remote Washoe County. My 5 children were raised backpacking and walking to remote fishing and hunting spots. Their 10 children and two grand children spend all possible time in wild country on foot or horseback. Family time in remote, quiet, motor- free backcountry is as good as it gets. It’s also always where to find the best hunting and fishing. Besides, none of us could ever afford expensive machines.
My experience is broad. I have seen all too often what happens to unprotected wild country. I do not doubt that local residents like John D value the remoteness and wildness of the surrounding public lands. We must remember the land belongs to all of us and we all share management expense.
The hordes on wheels are coming. We must set aside some select and sizeable areas to protect that wildness while there is time. There most certainly is also room for a carefully planned system of motorized routes. Much of Nevada is lucky: the population increases and mobility of the motorized public have been slow coming. However, they have already hit eastern Nevada hard, disrupting locals traditional drive to camping and hunting spots; they will be here soon.
I must add: The MU act was inacted when I was in the 6th year of my carreer. I heard, in person the author of that act, Dr. Richard McCardle, then Chief of the US Forest Service, explain the purpose of the Multiple Use concept. The MU act was intended to place the non-valued resources like scenery and wildlife on an equal legal footing with commodity extraction activities like logging and mining. It was never intended to mandate all uses on all areas. Neither was it intended to place any use or uses on a higher plain than any other.
I think a very good case could be made that Wilderness protects multiple use by not allowing modern machinery to displace wildlife or disrupt traditional uses of the land such as ranching, hunting, trapping, fishing, horseback riding and hiking. In addition, there is no better protection for watersheds than Wilderness.
Check out Bill Schneider’s column in New West on wilderness and multiple use. I share his frustration that most people who rail about wilderness “banning” multiple use don’t understand that WILDERNESS IS A MULTIPLE USE.