Gold Butte solution requires common sense

South of Mesquite is a remote and sometimes unforgiving outdoor playground known as Gold Butte, so named for the small mining community that produced gold, copper, zinc and lead in the early 1900s. The area comprises approximately 350,000 acres generally located between Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument on the east and Lake Mead on the west.

For most of the last century, Gold Butte was one of those unique places most people never heard of. Its list of visitors was relatively short and consisted primarily of prospectors, cattleman, trappers, hunters and eventually off-road enthusiasts. While the area is known to hold desert bighorn sheep and even mule deer, it is probably best known among outdoorsmen as a quail-hunting destination.

Like many of the West’s outdoor jewels, Gold Butte was protected by its anonymity. Then two things happened. Someone left the gate open, and there was a mass migration to Southern Nevada. And someone invented the Internet. It wasn’t long before Gold Butte was thrust out of obscurity, and the inevitable happened. Visitation increased, and conflicts between user groups began to occur.

At one end of the spectrum, you have those who come to Gold Butte seeking solitude by exploring it on foot. At the other end, you have those seeking a place to ride their all-terrain vehicles where dust police leave them alone. And in the middle, you have the hunters, trappers, campers and prospectors who generally see the value of both modes of exploring. They have been coming to Gold Butte all along and just want to keep doing so.

I don’t see these various uses as being mutually exclusive — probably because I am a diehard supporter of a multiple-use approach to public lands management. Unfortunately, what generally happens in a case such as Gold Butte is political correctness pushes aside common sense and access to our public places is severely limited, all in the name of protection.

In regard to Gold Butte, the people of Southern Nevada are standing at the crossroads. Increased human activity is no doubt having an impact on the natural, cultural and historic resources within the Gold Butte area, so some level of management is needed to ensure its future. The question is how much management — that means rules and regulations — is needed to achieve that end. I vote for fewer rather than more.

In fall 2008, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., introduced a bill that would have turned Gold Butte into a national conservation area with numerous wilderness areas. The bill stalled in committee. Now the Clark County Commission is considering a resolution to encourage our congressional delegation to again introduce legislation that would designate Gold Butte as a national conservation area with wilderness. Word is this item will be discussed during the commission’s meeting at 10 a.m. April 6.

Language in the proposed resolution acknowledges that the “Gold Butte Complex has become a destination for numerous recreation opportunities, including camping, hiking, hunting, motorized recreation and sightseeing.” This acknowledgement should at least open the door for negotiation on behalf of the various recreational interests if the process moves forward.

Freelance writer Doug Nielsen is a conservation educator for the Nevada Department of Wildlife. His “In the Outdoors” column, published Thursday in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, is not affiliated with or endorsed by the NDOW. Any opinions he states in his column are his own. He can be reached at dougnielsen@att.net.