SVAB Meeting

October 7th, discussion will include Sutter Ranch Parcel Transfer

AND new regulatory language concerning firearms

Be there.


4 Responses to “SVAB Meeting”

  1. 1 Anonymous November 9, 2015 at 6:52 pm

    It was finally stated by the attending NFWF representative at the last Advisory Board Meeting at the High School what everyone has been surmising about for so long.
    NFWF’s prime goal in purchasing all of these properties in our valley is to strip the water rights from them to send the water to Walker Lake. Unless the courts reverse this plan this is a done deal and the water is gone. What would have been best was for the previous land owner not to sell the land to NFWF and keep running cows on the land or to sell the land and water rights to local Smith Valley farmers and ranchers who would then keep the water in this valley and keep the valley in agriculture. The sad truth is all of those options are gone and are not coming back so we must look forward so we do not shoot ourselves in the foot. It seems as though if we do not allow the county to access this land, NFWF will most likely divide the 490 acres up into 20 or 40 acre parcels and then sell off these parcels to people like me from California that you all hate so much. Then we will have no control over any of the land or what is done with it and without water to grow something these new people will most likely just drive their dirt bikes and ATVs on it and so goes our valley….great!

    I suggest we possibly take an active good long hard look at this idea and put our heads together and come up with a plan and some guideline ideas. Of course we all have concerns and some of us may even have fears, but now is the time and opportunity to voice our opinions and desires so that the county and NFWF/WRC can hear our concerns and address them. And then when all is said and done if our concerns/ideas and opinions are not met or addressed, then we simply say no. It is our valley and we are the caretakers of it. I think in this blog we should all address our concerns so that in the end we can come up with an accumulative public opinion and our own proposed plan.

    One of my fears is, beings that the county like all government entities is all about the bottom line dollar, that NFWF will sell to a developer (like down at the north end of the valley). This developer will then romance the county into changing the zoning ordinances to 2.5 or 5 acre minimums in that development touting to the county that they will get more tax base revenue and it will pass and go through regardless of our opinions. If the county is broke and needs money that will trump all of our concerns for any government will sacrifice the wants of a few for the needs of the many.

    Here are some ideas I think we should address and stipulate:

    I do not think there should be hunting or archery. Neither are conducive with fishing and hiking or grazing if that idea were to ever come about.

    Horseback riding will bring more traffic and can be more destructive to trails.

    Fishing is good and catch and release fly fishing only, single barbless hooks is better.
    Bait fishing, salmon eggs, power bait bring treble hooks and more trash and yards of mono filament line in tangles on the river bank. Fly fishing is cleaner for the river, catch and release keeps the fish in the river for sport. And treble hooks are not good to get in your dog’s paws.

    Definitely no off road vehicles.

    No overnight camping, fire pits or fire allowed. Dusk to dawn use only with no fixed lighting installed.

    No alcohol or smoking (fire hazard).

    Dogs are allowed and should be able to be off the leash as long as they behave and are friendly (owner liable).

    Perimeter fencing should be required with signs that say “private property on other side of fence-no trespassing.”

    I do not have a problem with grazing, I just do not see how you graze land with only rain water and no irrigation and how the county lawyers will accept the liability of allowing people to walk among pasture animals who could somehow be spooked and could cause injury, hence lawsuits to the county.

    Trails are probably better if they are dirt, maybe a short paved loop for wheel chair accessibility.

    There should be minimal cost to the county as NFWF and WRC should pony up the cost of construction and operation for the first five years. After which the county can foot the bill.

    The WRC and NFWF should establish a concentrated weed abatement program in these first five years to arrest all intrusive, invasive and non-native nuisance weed populations.

    4 yard trash cans should only be in the parking lot areas with maybe some smaller cans out on the trail, but that will mean needed access for a vehicle to pick up and service said cans.

    How often will the trash cans need to be serviced, by whom and who will pay for said service?

    What impact and additional workload will this place on the Lyon County Sherriff’s office?

    What input comes forth from the Smith Valley Volunteer Fire Department on potential increased fire risk from a vastly increased public use?

    Hopefully this will start a conversation and discussion. Craig


  2. 3 smithnv October 1, 2015 at 5:29 am

    630 pm at the High School, Wednesday eve of October 7th…
    Hope to see you there!


  3. 4 Barb Douglas September 23, 2015 at 10:52 pm

    What time and where?



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to receive notifications of news posts by email.


%d bloggers like this: