The RMEF has always left me scratching my head.
At times, I really like what they do, other times it's WTF? Not much different than any other organization for sure, all of them do that.
That said, this waffling and contradictory messaging definitely leaves me scratching my head on the roadless rule.
When a person looks at the amount of truly roadless country we have left in the lower 48, it's going to be a pretty tough sell for me to support any messaging that says anything about building more roads. I don't give a shit if it's to improve WUI fuel loading, make habitat "improvements" or whatever. Their messaging makes it sound like it's impossible to do any kind of habitat improvement without a goddamn road. Or even do fuel reductions for WUI. Anyone ever heard of alternative access other than something with a motor and a road over there at RMEF?
Elk, grizzlies, deer, bighorn sheep, etc. etc. need security now more than ever, in particular on public lands. Advocating for punching roads into what little is left, total nonsense.
There's enough other habitat that is currently road accessible that needs their attention, I say focus on that first. When that job is done, let's figure out how to make improvements without compromising what little roadless country we have left. IMO, 380,000 miles of motorized access on FS lands is more than enough.
Anyone that believes roads do any good for securing habitat needs to talk to someone with a degree in psychology and a comfy couch. As access increases, wildlife is displaced and pressured more. It's like this: If you can drive there, the elk aren't. If you gate the road, people still hike in further and faster and more people access that. If it's a hiking trail, still plenty of people with horses and hiking. Areas with no roads, no trails, and where you have to travel cross country...yeah, those places don't have many people. In other words, the easier the access, the more pressure elk and other wildlife receive, it's that simple.
www.rmef.org
