Limiting use of federal land

For more than a decade, environmentalists have lobbied for Gold Butte to be designated a national conservation area. That push got a big shove last week when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced legislation to fulfill conservationists’ goal.

Gold Butte holds a great deal of scenic and historical value — rugged mountains, sandstone ridges, Native American petroglyphs and abandoned mine sites sit between the Overton arm of Lake Mead and Nevada’s border with Arizona. Sen. Reid’s bill would create a 348,515-acre conservation area to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management in a way that “conserves, protects and enhances” its natural, historical and scenic resources.

But since when has the federal government actually realized such a lofty goal? Under the heavy hand of federal stewardship, public lands have been overgrazed, overgrown forests have burned down, fire suppression policies have harmed wildlife diversity, and species “management” has led to the overpopulation of some species and waves of deaths among others.

Those in favor of creating a conservation area — which would include 129,500 acres of federally protected wilderness — argue that such a designation would be a boon to local economies, generating tourist dollars for towns such as Mesquite. A 2011 study conducted by researchers at Utah State University’s Huntsman School of Business determined otherwise. “We find that when controlling for other types of federally held land and additional factors impacting economic conditions, federally designated Wilderness negatively impacts local economic conditions,” wrote researchers Brian C. Steed, Ryan M. Yonk and Randy Simmons. “Specifically, we find a significant negative relationship between the presence of Wilderness and county total payroll, county tax receipts, and county average household income.”

The fact remains that many people who live near Gold Butte — including oft-picked-upon Cliven Bundy, the last active cattle rancher in Clark County — don’t want the conservation area and wilderness designations and the limitations that come with them. These interests are summarily dismissed by environmentalists who want to tell everyone, everywhere how they can live their lives.

Then there’s simply this: When is too much finally enough? President Barack Obama once noted of successful business owners: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Well, in Nevada and throughout the West, the federal government is far past the point of owning enough land. Washington controls one-third of the land in this country, but it owns a whopping 85 percent of Nevada.

We don’t need more restrictions on the use of federal land. If anything, Sen. Reid and the rest of our congressional delegation should be drafting legislation to give land back to the state and local governments or, heaven forbid, to private owners who’d pay property taxes.

Local stewards certainly wouldn’t do worse than the BLM. They have far more incentive to protect the value of their property and put land to its most productive use.