Dear HCN,
Thank you for the article on
Nevada wilderness (HCN, 3/3/03: The Wild Card). Many of us
promoting and protecting wilderness in Nevada didn’t know how
much was being traded off. Thanks to your intrepid author, we do
now. I’m dismayed that the bill promotes development and that
more is proposed in exchange for future bills.
It’s
also dismaying to learn that this wilderness bill contains specific
concessions supporting the dubious practice of building “game
guzzlers” — water facilities for wildlife (read bighorn
sheep) — in wilderness. In California, we are battling a Fish
and Game Department proposal to build hundreds of such contraptions
in the desert, complete with major intrusions on the land and the
construction of roads. Putting water in the desert is bad because
permanent water draws predators like coyotes and mountain lions,
threatening the sheep. Predators also attack other native wildlife,
such as desert tortoise, rodents, birds and reptiles, thus
impoverishing the wildlife we visit wilderness to see. Truly wild
desert animals don’t need artificial water.
In
addition, these water developments attract hunters, who build
blinds nearby, then pop up to shoot the animals when they come down
to drink. That’s why bighorn hunters, who spend $2,000 to
$5,000 to $50,000 for a tag and are primarily interested in heads,
are known as “trash hunters” by local folks who hunt real meat.
These “guzzlers” are the focal point of a very destructive practice
that exists mainly to service fat cats who have no interest in the
desert.
There are real consequences when one gives up
seemingly “nit-picking” compromises. Yes, you get acreage, but you
end up with “wilderness” in name only, where neither wilderness
values nor wildlife are respected.
Steve Tabor
Oakland, California
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Wilderness in name only.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
