99% of public comments opposed to ending Roadless Rule

[elkduds]

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture closed the public comment period regarding its intention to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule.

After 21 days, some 224,000 comments were submitted, as well as an additional 400,000 or so signatures collected by conservation activists who turned in responses in bulk.

Ad
1997-2006 Jeep Wrangler TJ Nerf Bar | 3Inch Tube | Rough Country
Rough Country

In an analysis of the comments, the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation advocacy group, found that approximately 99% opposed rescinding the rule. That figure does not factor in the hundreds of thousands of signatories who were also opposed.

“It’s hard to find anything that the American people agree with across party lines, across state lines like this,” said Aaron Weiss, the deputy director of the Center for Western Priorities.

“This is not a conservative-liberal thing. This is not a rural-urban thing. This is 99% of the American people saying, ‘Don’t do this.’”

MSN

 

[dranrab]

My BS meter is pegged.

 

[Treeshark]

This is 99% of the American people saying, ‘Don’t do this.

I’m surprised to learn that 99% of all Americans are even aware of this.

 

[sclancy27]

I’m surprised to learn that 99% of all Americans are even aware of this.

I'd imagine less than 1% of Americans are aware of this

 

[Straight Arrow]

I’m surprised to learn that 99% of all Americans are even aware of this.

I'm not surprised that the information expressed by that data was misread and misunderstood. Read more carefully prior to posting.

 

[Treeshark]

Read more carefully prior to posting.

I did. That’s how I knew the quote I referenced was BS.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I did. That’s how I knew the quote I referenced was BS.

Do you oppose the roadless rule and support it getting nixed?

This would be a more interesting thread if you werent pretending headlines always describe the full context. You use the internet much?

 

[Treeshark]

This would be a more interesting thread if you werent pretending headlines always describe the full context.

You’re right- it is usually more interesting to sensationalize the mundane. I would hate to rob that joy from anyone, I will bow out

 

[Straight Arrow]

I did. That’s how I knew the quote I referenced was BS.

You seem argumentative ... regardless of topic. Try to have a nice day.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You’re right- it is usually more interesting to sensationalize the mundane. I would hate to rob that joy from anyone, I will bow out

Every once in a while you have some insightful perspective. Just was hoping to hear that instead of conversation on some overblown technicality (thats a feature of journalism) you cant get past.

 

[Treeshark]

Do you oppose the roadless rule and support it getting nixed?

As a DIY public land hunter, I personally support it the roadless rule as it stands now.

In addition to that, I have not found the current admin’s justification for nixing it to be compelling whatsoever.

My hope is that it remains in place.

 

[nrpate05]

I don't think its a stretch that 99% of the comments were not supportive of rescinding the rule. Something like 95% of comments were supportive of the original rule and conservation orgs pushed this pretty hard for the last couple months. I'm not sure the administration really cares about the comments, but it is a positive statistic. The final quote about 99% of the people in America is definitely misleading.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't think its a stretch that 99% of the comments were not supportive of rescinding the rule. Something like 95% of comments were supportive of the original rule and conservation orgs pushed this pretty hard for the last couple months. I'm not sure the administration really cares about the comments, but it is a positive statistic. The final quote about 99% of the people in America is definitely misleading.

I think 99% of all headlines are misleading. People have to read the article to judge the quality of the information.

I think the issue is that this has been painted as a yes/no problem when the best approach requires something in the middle (which is common these days). Both sides of every argument tend paint a fantastical scenario where is all works out perfectly and we all sit around the table agree that life is wonderful. Nothing is that simple. Allowing roads isn't going to bring back the timber industry, or reduce fires, or beetle kill, or fund the NFS. But maybe there are few places that we need roads that would provide those economic benefits people generally agree are good? The whole thing requires nuanced thinking. More now than when the rule was put in place. Like I said, I don't think "solutions to problems" is the point of this rule change at all.

One worry is that more roads leads to more development. I guess insurance companies will fix that problem. Every western state is seeing increases in premiums, dropped policies, and in some cases insurers dropping out of entire markets due to wildfire risks.

 

[nrpate05]

I think 99% of all headlines are misleading. People have to read the article to judge the quality of the information.

I think the issue is that this has been painted as a yes/no problem when the best approach requires something in the middle (which is common these days). Both sides of every argument tend paint a fantastical scenario where is all works out perfectly and we all sit around the table agree that life is wonderful. Nothing is that simple. Allowing roads isn't going to bring back the timber industry, or reduce fires, or beetle kill, or fund the NFS. But maybe there are few places that we need roads that would provide those economic benefits people generally agree are good? The whole thing requires nuanced thinking. More now than when the rule was put in place. Like I said, I don't think "solutions to problems" is the point of this rule change at all.

One worry is that more roads leads to more development. I guess insurance companies will fix that problem. Every western state is seeing increases in premiums, dropped policies, and in some cases insurers dropping out of entire markets due to wildfire risks.

100% - the rule is almost a quarter century old. Let's review it and see what is working and what isn't. There are some places near me where roadless areas come right down to the edge of town and there are legitimate concerns about firefighters accessing certain areas. Seems like a place that compromise could be made, but let's not the throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[BuzzH]

100% - the rule is almost a quarter century old. Let's review it and see what is working and what isn't. There are some places near me where roadless areas come right down to the edge of town and there are legitimate concerns about firefighters accessing certain areas. Seems like a place that compromise could be made, but let's not the throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Problem with compromising is...you do it 4 times you’re left with 6 1/4 % of what you started with.

A compromise is 50% roadless 50% motorized access. We've already pissed away most of our roadless areas.

That isnt ever enough, now we "need" to compromise away the little that's left.

"What's in it for me and corporate america"...all it is. Excuses about forest health, fire risk, its all crap. Its about what its always about...$$$$$.

 

[westbranch]

Pretty sure the majority of "roadless" areas in North Idaho (north of hwy US 12) have trails with dirt bike access. I cannot imagine needing more 4x4 access. Some pretty cool spots that would not be as cool.

And they are doing plenty of thinning and rx burns around these roadless areas too. More management would be great.

 

[Wild Bill]

Good read written by a guy you might know.

Instead of adding more forest roads, let’s take care of the roads and trails we already have

 

[Treeshark]

Good read written by a guy you might know.

Instead of adding more forest roads, let’s take care of the roads and trails we already have

I appreciate @Ben Long using accurate and honest wording in the article:

“Over 99% of the 183,000 comments submitted argued against removing the public land protection for roadless lands, according to the Center for Western Priorities, which evaluated the response.”

 

[SAJ-99]

Good read written by a guy you might know.

Instead of adding more forest roads, let’s take care of the roads and trails we already have

Ben is scratching his head because he is a rational person and takes things at face value. Let's look at it another way, which I am still convinced is the main aim of all this. It's not about timber. It's about minerals.

His comment
Idaho, a Republican state with more roadless lands than just about any other state, decided to do its own analysis of roadless lands during the 1990s. Idaho found it was fiscal folly to build roads on 99% of Idaho’s roadless lands. For context, the review revealed that Idaho roadless areas support some of the state’s best big game hunting, while also providing cold, clear water that native trout, salmon and steelhead need to spawn.

Idaho has one of the largest know deposits of placer sand in the US. Pretty much the entire north central part of the state. Placer sand deposits often contain deposits of various rare earth elements (REE), which are necessary for use in electronics and military applications. Idaho has two main known deposits- Diamond Creek and Lehmi Pass. Diamond Creek has roads (USGS give coordinates as 45.29112, -113.95174, which is on a road) and Lehmi pass spans the Bitterroots, Beaverhead and Lehmi mountains (Megado mining co map attached, which shows the project in Montana that @mtmuley cited as active in his area in the other thread).

The attached link below is the map from the North Fork project is a good, short read. The key statement is "Mineralization is inferred to be associated with a, as yet unidentified, subsurface syenite‐peralkaline intrusion located in the area.". Read that as "We need to do a lot of looking". The entire state was researched by USGS in the 40's and 50's but REE were not that important until 2000 or so, so what we know exists is probably dwarfed by what is undiscovered. And that is just Idaho.

For the somewhat political take: The prior administration did a lot of work in this area as well, because the military applications of REE and our reliance on imports from China create an untenable situation. The military needs more technology (drones) and this is increasing the need for REE. This administration is moving forward the same plan in the same direction, only it seems to have a goal of making a public spectacle of getting there by reversing anything done by a Dem administration to score political points. Optics, or something. Both have also tried to do this "quietly" (silly, I know), and this group has tried to publicly cloak it under the blanket of "forest health" and "fire mitigation". The American public buys it I guess, but I'm sure China is well aware of what is going on.

I think most Americans would agree on the goal and the necessity to get there. The downside is that mining, particularly REE, is a dirty business and the map shows a lot of good hunting area that will be impacted in some way.



Citations, for those with too much time on their hands because they don't have hunting tags, like me.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/pdf/SIR2010-5220.pdf#page=56

North Fork Rare Earth Project – Megado Minerals Limited

megadominerals.com

Map of current REE projects. Idaho/MT project so new it doesn't even show up.

 

[SAJ-99]

More news from the space. Trilogy metals closed today at $2.09. Trading over $5 after-hours. None of this is about timber.

Trump reverses Biden restrictions on Alaskan mining road

Federal permits were first issued for the Alaskan Ambler Access Project during Trump's first administration.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/mining-company-angling-for-ambler-road-surges-in-value-after-trumps-election/