Reader alleges BLM exaggerating horses’ plight
When are you going to realize that the BLM and Forest Service are NOT your friend? These two departments of the federal government do nothing but lie to accomplish whatever they are after.
The article in the May 9 Pahrump Valley Times about the roundup of the Cold Creek horses was put in by the BLM and Forest Service. This is why it is all negative about the horses. The horses were in bad shape, so they say. If you were to talk to the citizens of Cold Creek, they are fine. The citizens there watch over these horses every day, if anyone knows about these animals, they would. The pictures in this article were taken at another roundup, (in 2015).
How many waterholes have they fenced off? They bulldozed Grapevine Pond. Where are they supposed to get water? How many horses have died in their so-called humane care? How many have they sent through channels to slaughter? They don’t tell you that. They have been followed by many organizations of the equine. They have documentation on their humane care, treatment and extinction. NOT GOOD. They are to manage, NOT destroy.
I guess you can contact our pathetic Legislature. If you think they will do anything, they won’t. All they do is give false feelings that they are listening to what you are saying.
The BLM have taken and made money with our horses, land and anything else they are connected to. WE HAVE TO STOP THE BLM.
Sincerely, a very concerned citizen.
Resident says speed traps counterproductive
A response to my previous letter regarding traffic enforcement in Pahrump, but not in a good way.
I was hoping to get some letters from readers expressing contrary opinions, or something from the sheriff’s office telling me what I’m full of and what they’re doing is perfect, but I guess a paid political advertisement promoting re-election of the current sheriff is better than nothing.
To reiterate, I was given a ticket for driving 20 mph down a completely deserted street in a “school zone” which was set up for a school that had closed years before. When I went to court to pay the fine, which was way out of proportion to the actual “offense” ($200), I encountered a room packed with angry citizens who were victims of similar speed traps.
Ms. Sharon E. Otellio, the author of the advertisement, claims that Sheriff Wehrly never proposed at a county commission meeting to raise revenue by increasing traffic enforcement, and that the proposal was rejected by the commissioners.
To the best of my recollection, the article appeared in the Pahrump Mirror, which unfortunately is no longer in business, and I am unable to verify this fact. However, it is burned into my memory due to being outraged that our law enforcement agency thought so little of us citizens of Nye County that, rather than serving and protecting us, their priority was to use us as ATMs to produce revenue.
I am not alone in this. In the May 18, 2018 issue of the PVT, sheriff candidate David Hiebert went on public record as saying that in his discussions with the public, traffic was a main concern. “We need traffic enforcement but it should never be for revenue and that is what they’re doing.”
Of course, as a candidate running against the incumbent, Mr. Hiebert’s statement is politically motivated. But it does demonstrate that traffic “enforcement” is a problematic issue in Nye County and is not being conducted in a way that benefits the public.
I don’t know if Sheriff Wehrly personally authorized the speed traps, but as top law enforcement officer she is the boss, and the deputies who lurk in the shadows waiting to pounce on unsuspecting drivers are operating on her watch.
Although the speed traps are technically legal, my biggest problem with them is that they are counterproductive to public safety. Instead of cruising around looking for actual offenders who could harm themselves, other people and/or property, the deputies are tied up performing an activity that serves no purpose other than to generate revenue.
The statement that jumped off the page at me in Ms. Otellio’s advertisement is that if a citizen has a problem with a 15 mph speed limit on a deserted street near a closed school, they should go to the principal of the school rather than blame the deputies.
Well, how exactly are we supposed to go the principal when the school was closed years ago?
I haven’t decided who I’m going to vote for in the next election, but one thing is for sure. For all Ms. Otellio’s rhetoric and the cost of the advertisement, Sheriff Wehrly succeeded in nailing me for an outrageous $200 fine, but it cost her my vote. And I don’t think I’m alone on that one.
David G. Alexander
Interesting facts concerning interventions
Interventions can be the difference between life and death for a drug addict or an alcoholic. Not every person in need of rehabilitation readily accepts the opportunity to get clean and handle the issues that drove them to addiction. An intervention is an extremely helpful tool for families who are dealing with a loved one who is completely against getting help and resists the idea of going to treatment.
Some families believe if an addict or alcoholic isn’t willing to get help on their own, there is no way to convince them. However, in most cases, an addict does not want to be an addict but the desire to stop using is masked by fear of coming off of the drug and confronting the problems that have ensued with their addiction.
Another interesting fact is that if an addict or alcoholic believes they can continue to drink alcohol or use drugs successfully, without any type of consequences for their behavior, they will continue to do so because the harmful effects on their family and their own life caused by their addiction are still less powerful than the grasp the addiction has on them.
There are two types of interventions; one where the family sits down with the addict and has a professional interventionist conduct a family intervention, where the addict is confronted and offered drug rehabilitation. If they choose not to attend drug rehab, the family gives the addict consequences for their choice.
The other type of intervention is done by an interventionist and conducted on a one-on-one basis, where the interventionist works with the addict alone to get their agreement to go to treatment. Once the interventionist, in either case, gets the addict to choose help, they will escort them to the treatment center the family has picked out and get them successfully checked in.
Often, interventionists can be more successful in handling the addict than the family since, in many cases, the interventionist is an ex-addict himself. By having gone through addiction, the interventionist can level with the addict, speak from their reality and truly understand and have empathy for what they are going through. The interventionist is also a neutral party and not heavily emotionally involved in the situation like the family is. Interventions can help an addict make a logical choice for themselves when they might not be able to alone. If an addict is struggling with addiction, but refuses help, interventions can be a powerful tool used to save their life.
For more information on interventions, go to www.narconon-suncoast.org/blog/thepower-of-an-intervention. If you are in need of a referral to a treatment center, call us at 1-877-841-5509
Thank you to generous stranger at Mom’s
You made my day and more by paying for my out order lunch at Mom’s Diner Wednesday, May 15 at approximately 11 a.m.
I have bought lunch or dinner for people I did not know several times over the years but have NEVER had anyone do it for me until now.
As I am 86 years old and my husband of 32 years just died seven months ago, I am so sad and feel lost. I had to deal with a swarm of bees Tuesday and I am trying to sell my husband’s fantastic truck but no takers. Everyone wants it for next to nothing.
At Mom’s Diner I was really feeling down, with too many people trying to cheat me. Then along came a wonderful person and made me smile.
So thank you and God bless you whoever you are.
Question 3 would be bad for rural Nevadans
There’s been a lot of discussion across Nevada about Question 3, a constitutional amendment on our statewide ballot this November that would dismantle Nevada’s existing electricity system and replace it with a new, unknown system established by the Legislature and the courts.
The reality is, we don’t really know exactly what we are voting on with Question 3. The amendment provides no details on how Nevada’s new electricity system would work, and the proponents have not offered any sort of plan of their own. Instead, the ballot measure would lock a risky and costly experiment into the state Constitution and create an uncertain electric system that even the proponents admit would not guarantee the lower electric rates they’ve been promising.
What we do know is our existing energy providers would disappear if Question 3 were to pass. The rural electric co-ops that many of our communities participate in aren’t protected under Question 3. The state’s major providers would be forced to sell its power plants and cancel long-term energy agreements, many of which are for renewable energy projects built right here in Nevada.
Those costs would be in the billions and would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bills. In fact, a recent independent investigation conducted by the Public Utilities Commission found that Question 3 would likely increase average residential electric bills for Nevadans for at least a decade.
We have come a long way in the last 50 years, and if Question 3 were to pass it would be a major setback in the progress we have made, coupled with a whole lot of uncertainty. I personally don’t miss the days with the old Witte, or worse yet, it not thumping out back. We must not forget the old times when we had small providers that gave consumers in rural areas low voltage in the afternoons and evenings, which meant we went without electricity for blocks of time.
Many of you recall we had energy choice over two decades ago and it failed. In the late 1990s, many states, including Nevada, tried to implement laws like Question 3. California’s attempt in the early 2000s led to skyrocketing rates and consumer complaints, rolling blackouts, the Enron scandal, and more than $40 billion in added costs for consumers and taxpayers.
Of the 24 states that originally attempted a scheme like Question 3, only 14 states still have deregulated electricity systems in place. In those states, average residential electricity rates are 30 percent higher than Nevada’s, and California’s overall electric rates are nearly double ours.
That’s why it’s been nearly 20 years since any state has taken the risk of implementing a system like that which Question 3 proposes. Given this history, Question 3 is especially risky for Nevada because it would be very difficult to repeal from our Constitution and take years to undo the damage it would cause.
As a Nevada native and public servant, I am deeply concerned that if Question 3 were to pass, the ramifications would be detrimental to the hard-working residents and small businesses in rural communities across the state. We do not need a constitutional mandate, the average ratepayer and majority of consumers will not benefit. Rather than implement a risky scheme that would dismantle our reliable electricity system and cost Nevadans billions, I’m urging my constituents to look into the facts and vote NO on Question 3.
Pete J. Goicoechea,
Nevada State Senator, District 19