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

[SAJ-99]

Read this article the other day. Good example of how vehicles can degrade the land.

Also to note, the current roadless rule allows for fuel reduction. Of course, there are not many employees left to do the analysis on those areas most in need of fuel reduction. But a lot of the things coming from the administration is trying to act like it doesn't. Just not true.

Major Forest Service Rules Are Changing. Here’s What’s At Stake.

The Forest Service is looking to change how roadless areas, roads and motorized travel are managed on public lands. Here’s what the proposed rule changes could mean for access, recreation and conservation.

montanafreepress.org

Trout Unlimited has a good take as well. It is hard to ignore that RMEF gets a lot of $$ from the private landowners that are benefitting from getting these elk.

Roadless Areas - Defending America’s Sporting Lands - Trout Unlimited

Roadless Stats

www.tu.org

 

[BuzzH]

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?

We don't need more roads. Everytime another road goes in that "may" solve one problem, it creates a bunch of others. FACT.

I have the luxury of not being forced to guess, that comes with working in the woods for 39 years and spending a significant amount of my free time in the woods as well.

I don't give a shit what any nonprofit says.

 

[406dn]

I do not think the roads are nearly as much about managing land, as they are punching access to mineral deposits.

There are millions of acres of roaded forest service land that would benefit from management. The backlog is endless. The forest service has enough trouble clearing trails of deadfall.

imo, it is a Trojan horse of sorts. It would be a non starter, if the reason stated was that mining companies have interest in various mineral deposits. It sounds much better to say it is to more effectively manage the land. Then, later, announce that since it is a multiple use area, Acme mining company is going to open a mine.

Ronald Reagan had the saying "trust but verify". Can anyone attest to this administration being forthright about anything? They can't even get the reflecting pool damage story straight.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

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?

For me its kind of like your take on selling public land. Remember when you would proudly proclaim "not one single acre". Then the FS decides to partner with a group to build public housing on some FS acres in Jackson and you were fully supportive of that. Don't see a lot of houses in the pics you posted either but I would agree with you that housing can still be a good thing. FFS, is it ever going to be enough when it comes to houses?

Rescission of the roadless rule is not going to result in a road running through your Yukon caribou hunting grounds but you know this.

 

[BuzzH]

For me its kind of like your take on selling public land. Remember when you would proudly proclaim "not one single acre". Then the FS decides to partner with a group to build public housing on some FS acres in Jackson and you were fully supportive of that. Don't see a lot of houses in the pics you posted either but I would agree with you that housing can still be a good thing. FFS, is it ever going to be enough when it comes to houses?

Rescission of the roadless rule is not going to result in a road running through your Yukon caribou hunting grounds but you know this.

Right, but roads running through the selkirks did eliminate caribou in the lower 48. Roads have silted salmon, steelhead, cutthroat, bull trout streams and eliminated untold miles of spawning habitat. Roads have created a massive problem with weeds, water quality, increased human caused ignition sources for wildfires. Not to mention the 100's od thousands of acres of lost habitat, reduced wildlife security....and on and on and on. That's just a few of the problems.

I ask again, when and what number of roads is going to be enough on FS lands?

BTW, the reason for building on the FS near Jackson is because there's a road to it.

I wasn't cracked up about losing any acres for that housing project either. I would much rather have seen federal wages increase so workers could afford to live there.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Right, but roads running through the selkirks did eliminate caribou in the lower 48. Roads have silted salmon, steelhead, cutthroat, bull trout streams and eliminated untold miles of spawning habitat. Roads have created a massive problem with weeds, water quality, increased human caused ignition sources for wildfires. Not to mention the 100's od thousands of acres of lost habitat, reduced wildlife security....and on and on and on. That's just a few of the problems.

I ask again, when and what number of roads is going to be enough on FS lands?

BTW, the reason for building on the FS near Jackson is because there's a road to it.

I wasn't cracked up about losing any acres for that housing project either. I would much rather have seen federal wages increase so workers could afford to live there.

Of course roads lead to problems. Never argued roads are nothing but benefits. Just as obvious is sometimes roads have beneficial value. Sometimes the neg outweighs the pos but it is not universal.

Current policy of zero miles, seems to me to be as foolish as a policy requiring X miles of new each year. Ultimaelty if the rule remains I won't loose any sleep. Neither will I if the rule is rescinded.

I don't have a target on new miles. Has anyone with the power to do so, stated how many miles of roads are to be built should the rule go away? Or given a specific location? Or a timeframe?