Op-ed urging president to overturn Gold Butte’s monument designation was misguided

Stanley Paher’s faulty argument against Gold Butte and Basin and Range being national monuments is that they contain features that are hard to drive to (“Gold Butte not worthy of monument status,” Sunday commentary). He bemoans the fact that these new monuments currently lack good roads and adequate staff to help people who might get in trouble. He falsely calls the areas “land grabs” when he knows full well that these places have always been managed by the federal government and were never in state or local hands.

Mr. Paher claims that the original goal of Antiquities Act was to create small-scale protected areas, forgetting how the Grand Canyon was originally a national monument. He furthermore claims the features are superfluous, lack the quality of other such features elsewhere, and are already protected by other federal designations.

But the point of having national monuments is to conserve distinctive areas of Southern Nevada. Gold Butte and Basin and Range are more than just rock-art sites. Over the years, I have traveled throughout Gold Butte and volunteer there as a site steward monitoring areas of high impact. I can attest that the geology, biology and history of the area as a whole merits protection — and without it, destruction, grave robbing and vandalism will continue.

As more resources and personnel are allocated — something that a high percentage of the public has always supported — many of the complaints Mr. Paher has right now will be addressed and the ongoing vandalism Mr. Paher decries in these areas can be combated. Without monument status, such destruction will continue.

Mr. Paher should understand that these lands have value whether or not one can drive to them, a value that merits protection even if one must hike or ride four-wheel vehicles through them. Nevadans have recognized that Gold Butte and Basin and Range are not superfluous or inferior, nor of little interest or value.