RMEF opines on Roadless Rule and USFS Travel Management proposals, impotently.

[elkduds]

As if they actually believe NEPA, ESA and Clean Water Act will even merit a whiff from this Administration. This is some weak-ass tea, RMEF.

RMEF Roadless Rule and Travel Management Rule Statement

The evaluation of the Roadless Rule and the scoping of potential changes to the 2005 Travel Management Rule are directly related. The fundamental big game question is how the interplay between active forest habitat management and ongoing recreational disturbance will be balanced against elk and...

www.rmef.org

 

[texwest44]

Unfortunately, even before the draft environmental impact statement and its three alternatives were released in August, the discourse on this topic from special interests on all sides has been hyperbolic and polarizing. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) has resisted initial pressure to take an immediate or reactive position on the proposal.

You know those moments where you've been unreasonably tolerant and cool-headed in a serious situation where the other person is clearly the bad actor, and then some bozo scolds you for not being cooperative?


I also like this:

While the blanket Roadless Rule has played a key role in providing wildlife security and space, it has also in many cases worsened forage (food) conditions and water development.

Literally the opening to the paragraph:

Elk and other big game may also be negatively impacted by disturbance. The proliferation of roads and trails that reduce elk and big game security have negative impacts on reproduction and distribution.

Is this the Twilight Zone, what the hell is going on? I can stack up papers and reports about how removing and rebuilding road infrastructure benefits land and wildlife, and so can the RMEF and anyone else. This seems very strange at the surface level.