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.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

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

ask yourself who the vast majority of their membership voted for...

I feel we're approaching a 1990's ATF "jackbooted thugs" moment with a lot of "conservation" orgs.

 

[Bonasababy]

I hope chapters take note and revolt. Some weak a$$ stuff, some flat out wrong...

 

[RealMuddyboots]

So just got my renewal and now questioning "why". I expect better and got less.

 

[nrpate05]

That statement is just a bit contradictory...

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

RMEF is hands down the best true conservation org for big game. This makes me seriously consider giving them even more financial support than I already do. A rational, reasoned, balanced response rather than the wheels are coming off hyperbole I expect from most orgs.

 

[Straight Arrow]

That statement is just a bit contradictory...

From my perspective it reads more of an objective analysis.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

 

[Nameless Range]

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.

I've thought this as well and see it as powerful evidence that habitat/fuels is not at all what this is about. There's hundreds of thousands of acres out my back door - tens of millions across the west - that are not classified Roadless and not a whole hell of a lot is being done on them. What makes folks think putting Roadless acres on the same playing field as what is currently outside that category will automagically engorge the agencies in charge of them with money, staff, and a new directive? Theoretically, if Roadless is the problem, we should be seeing those desirable outcomes on non-roadless. But we aren't.

 

[BuzzH]

Here's some fun facts about all the "good" roads do...and yet an organization that claims conservation is important wants more roads? Not buying what they're selling.

A. Direct loss of habitat (see Forman et al. 2003):
• 3.9 million miles of roads in the U.S. • 2.3 million miles are paved.
• Nationwide, 71 million acres of habitat have been lost to primary highways.
• U.S. Forest Service currently maintains and administers ca. 386,000 miles of roads on Forest Service lands, which would circle the equator fifteen times.
• Roads remove two acres of habitat per mile of sixteen-foot-wide road.
• Seven million acres of national forest lands are under roads

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Fun facts about RMEF

• 9.1M acres conserved or enhanced since 1984
• Area larger than the entire state of Maryland
• RMEF has partnered with USFS on over 3,600 projects of habitat improvement and conservation
• That work affected 3.8M acres of USFS land
• Total value of that work $369M

RMEF know more about working with the USFS and getting positive results than any other US based conservation org. Hands down.

 

[El Jason]

Two things can simultaneously be true:

1. RMEF has done some great work
2. They are on Mars with their take on the roadless rule rescission.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Two things can simultaneously be true:

1. RMEF has done some great work
2. They are on Mars with their take on the roadless rule rescission.

Right on! I would give them quite a bit more credit on their take given their track record but that's just me. Sure seems odd that for the last 41 years they have done better than anyone else at conservation work and partnering with USFS then in year 42 they have gone batsh!t crazy with their take. Maybe?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Right on! I would give them quite a bit more credit on their take given their track record but that's just me. Sure seems odd that for the last 41 years they have done better than anyone else at conservation work and partnering with USFS then in year 42 they have gone batsh!t crazy with their take. Maybe?

I gotta be honest - id agree in a way. I dont think its entirely fair to be an absolutist on the roadless rule.

Theres just a lot of logistical and prioritization problems. For example, Iike 5 minutes ago we fired everyone and we have an existing major infrastructure backlog. Hows all the work going to get done? And - the places in most dire need (deadfall hellholes that could be better habitat) are frankly impractical to build roads to?

Targeting the urban/forest interface doesnt personally mean a lot to me, that sounds like a deal that needs sorted out with insurance and prop owners footing the bill for treating the forest. Ultimately though - that isnt really where the "habitat" is anyway - so why would rmef opine on it? I also dont agree that public land habtitat quality is the sole reason for the shift in where animals reside. I'd bet more of it has to do with the motorized recreationists buzzing around on every road.

 

[Bonasababy]

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.

Yep.

Re fire...As discussed in other threads...MORE fires start in areas with access and roads than roadless areas, and its not even close.

And also as discussed in other threads...direct example-- fuel reductions planned near the BWCA were scuttled by massive DOGE cuts.

Right in the spot where huge fires started this summer there-- sending smoke across much of the region for weeks.

Oughta be clear by now that we can't trust any rationale from this administration that doesn't involve making money for them or their contributing supporters.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I gotta be honest - id agree in a way. I dont think its entirely fair to be an absolutist on the roadless rule.

Theres just a lot of logistical and prioritization problems. For example, Iike 5 minutes ago we fired everyone and we have an existing major infrastructure backlog. Hows all the work going to get done? And - the places in most dire need (deadfall hellholes that could be better habitat) are frankly impractical to build roads to?

I think this is a reasonable take. I don't entirely get the push to make more roads when we already don't fund it enough to maintain the ones we got. I don't know enough to know where more roads might be helpful but I would be surprised if such a place didn't exist. I read RMEF's take as this. Lets argue the merit of individual road construction projects rather than just blanket say "no more".

Targeting the urban/forest interface doesnt personally mean a lot to me, that sounds like a deal that needs sorted out with insurance and prop owners footing the bill for treating the forest. Ultimately though - that isnt really where the "habitat" is anyway - so why would rmef opine on it? I also dont agree that public land habtitat quality is the sole reason for the shift in where animals reside. I'd bet more of it has to do with the motorized recreationists buzzing around on every road.

For sure not the sole reason but if any group would know areas where it could be, it would be RMEF.

I like the lack of roads in FS land as much as the next guy but I am also open to the thought that a road here and there might be benficial.

 

[BuzzH]

Right on! I would give them quite a bit more credit on their take given their track record but that's just me. Sure seems odd that for the last 41 years they have done better than anyone else at conservation work and partnering with USFS then in year 42 they have gone batsh!t crazy with their take. Maybe?

Fun facts about RMEF

• 9.1M acres conserved or enhanced since 1984
• Area larger than the entire state of Maryland
• RMEF has partnered with USFS on over 3,600 projects of habitat improvement and conservation
• That work affected 3.8M acres of USFS land
• Total value of that work $369M

RMEF know more about working with the USFS and getting positive results than any other US based conservation org. Hands down.

Tell me how a road makes these things better for anything: Show your work.

 

[BuzzH]

I like the lack of roads in FS land as much as the next guy but I am also open to the thought that a road here and there might be benficial.

Great let's make another compromise...bad enough we've done it 4 times already which leaves us with 6 1/4% of what we started with.

FFS, is it EVER going to be enough when it comes to roads?

 

[Gellar]

Tell me how a road makes these things better for anything: Show your work.

I think @WyoCoalMiner’s argument is about verbatim with what I’ve heard Ryan Callahan say on his weekly podcast. Isn’t he the ceo of a nonprofit you are pretty involved with?