As the early morning sun rose on Saturday, a large crowd of people gathered out in the middle of the desert at Whitney Pockets. More than 70 people showed up at this gateway to the vast area that has become known as the Gold Butte complex. They were all there to celebrate National Public Lands Day and to participate in volunteer projects that they felt, in one way or another, would protect the landscape that they had come to love.
The crowd that assembled was a diverse group. In attendance were BLM staff, members and supporters of Friends of Gold Butte (FOGB), members of the Public Lands Conservation Committee (PLCC) from communities of northeast Clark County, and other individuals: senior citizens, teens, young families with small children; almost every demographic. They were all there because of a common love and respect for the land and a desire to preserve and protect it. Several projects had been planned that reflected these goals.
To look at this group on might have thought that there was complete unity of purpose among them. The projects were carried out with the utmost efficiency and with great zeal. Nothing was wasted.
Yet just beneath the surface, there were actually significant divisions and differences of opinion. The FOGB and other wilderness organizations were quick to promote their agenda: a federal National Conservation Area (NCA) designation for Gold Butte and thousands of acres of new federal wilderness. On the other side were members of the PLCC and their supporters who fear that such designations will eventually restrict them from access to these lands which have been so important to their families for generations.
Whatever the differences, all these folks set aside the better part of a Saturday to go out to Gold Butte and try to make a difference in the areas most important to them. There was no government entity telling them what to do. The projects, for the most part, had been identified, organized and were being carried out by ordinary people who just saw some things that needed to be done and were doing them. The projects didn’t come at a big cost to the taxpayers. They didn’t involve an act of Congress or a mandate from a federal bureaucracy. Some coordination for the projects had taken place with BLM staff, but the BLM was acting mainly in a support role to the public. And everything worked like clockwork.
All of this begs the question: what is wrong with this model? Why can’t public lands be cared for and managed by the people who most value them? Why are we so quick to request that the hand of the federal government should come in and see to these things for us?
In the case of Gold Butte, there is obviously a huge contingent of responsible stewards and stakeholders who treasure the area and would show up anytime to volunteer to monitor and protect the landscape. There is ample leadership among them to identify needs, seek grant funding and coordinate projects to meet those needs. And there is a small army of helpers who would show up with tools in hand to carry it all out. There is not a dearth of responsible and attentive citizen stewards of Gold Butte.
Given all of this local interest and support, why should we be so quick to ask Washington to solve a local problem? Why should we spend significant taxpayer dollars and create complex new layers of bureaucracy to manage this vast area which could be managed just as well through a much simpler, and less expensive, coalition between BLM and the responsible public?
Look at what was accomplished on Saturday with this little set of projects that brought a diverse group of the public together for a common cause. Why can’t that become a new model for the ongoing preservation, protection and management of Gold Butte?
