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?

 

[Forkyfinder]

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".

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.

I think this is what set me off, more than anything:

• Increased opportunities for hazardous fuel treatments in the Wildland-Urban Interface, where 9.8 million acres (or 24 percent) overlap with IRAs, and, where justified, would allow strategically placed roads that can improve suppression effectiveness near communities and critical infrastructure

From my POV - its not the responsibility of the forest service to manage away the landowners problems of building next to a risk. But its disturbing that the "roadless" areas that im most concerned about (overgrown deadfall that could be habitat) arent the only priority for a species conservation org. Wildfire mitigation adjacent to urban interface doesn't grow much for elk populations. Jmho...

 

[BuzzH]

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?

I see very few if any benefits to roads other than capitalist ambition when it comes to punching new roads into what little we have left that isn't roaded to hell and gone already.

Lets just consider what isn't being maintained now in regard to roads. Between roads and bridges, close to 7 billion. So, you feel it's a good idea to punch roads into Roadless areas when we have a backlog of 7 BILLION in road and bridge maintenance?

Then let's factor in the cost of constructing a new road, where does that money come from? What other maintenance or programs do we rob from to pay for road construction?

How much does it cost to control the weeds, that 100% are going to show up? What is the value placed on lost wildlife habitat from JUST the road construction? Where does the money and manpower come from to pay for all that?

I can assure you, it's 100% NOT going to be you advocating for additional funding for the FS to do those things, or asking your representatives to start hiring federal workers to accomplish those things.

So, again, knowing all the problems that roads cause, all the upfront costs, all the maintenance they require, etc. etc...how are you going to convince anyone with a slight clue that building new roads through the fraction of what's left is a net benefit?

I say it's impossible, no more roads is the only logical answer.

For what it's worth, it's a rare bird, and I mean a rare bird when I can't get a motorized something or another within a mile or two of all my work sites (through legal access). A majority of those were in either current roadless areas or designated wilderness. I probably averaged doing 80-100+ site visits a year, maybe half a dozen that required a hike over 2 miles.

We have a massive road problem.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I can assure you, it's 100% NOT going to be you advocating for additional funding for the FS to do those things, or asking your representatives to start hiring federal workers to accomplish those things.

I can assure you that you are 100% wrong. I spoke with Rep. Hageman about 3 weeks ago. The original intent was not to discuss the RR but I turned the discussion to the lack of FS funding for existing maintenance as a significnat hurdle to her bill. I suggested offering a mile for mile tradeoff. For each mile of new, reclaim an existing mile. Highly doubt that will get any traction given her reaction.

Our soon to be new Governor came out a couple months ago. We talked about this very thing. He is onboard, but it remains to be seen if he will have any sway.

Don't presume to know where I think tax dollars should be spent. In the last presidential election you and I voted for the same guy.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I see very few if any benefits to roads other than capitalist ambition when it comes to punching new roads into what little we have left that isn't roaded to hell and gone already.

For what it's worth, it's a rare bird, and I mean a rare bird when I can't get a motorized something or another within a mile or two of all my work sites (through legal access). A majority of those were in either current roadless areas or designated wilderness. I probably averaged doing 80-100+ site visits a year, maybe half a dozen that required a hike over 2 miles.

We have a massive road problem.

Last weekend, the wife and I went 34 miles up a FS road, found a nice, empty spot along the river, fished for a while, and just enjoyed a beautiful day. I think that is a damn good benefit of a FS road. Two weekends ago my neighbor and I spent the day cutting firewood for his place this winter. Another damn nice benefit of a FS road. The existing road network allows yourself and your coworkers to do the research and management work that you do. I would assume even you would regard that as a benefit. Hard to believe that existing FS roads can some how find a way to provide a benefit, even with the existing negatives, but even one mile of new one would have zero chance.

 

[406dn]

My speculation is that reclaiming a road bed, and returning it to a semi original state costs more or less the same as building a road. So, I just see the mile for a mile as even more spending, to maintain a mythical status quo.

A person has to do some research to find a parcel of land five miles from any road. It is not difficult to find some two or three miles from a road, but it starts getting rare to get more than that.

 

[BuzzH]

Last weekend, the wife and I went 34 miles up a FS road, found a nice, empty spot along the river, fished for a while, and just enjoyed a beautiful day. I think that is a damn good benefit of a FS road. Two weekends ago my neighbor and I spent the day cutting firewood for his place this winter. Another damn nice benefit of a FS road. The existing road network allows yourself and your coworkers to do the research and management work that you do. I would assume even you would regard that as a benefit. Hard to believe that existing FS roads can some how find a way to provide a benefit, even with the existing negatives, but even one mile of new one would have zero chance.

We dont need more roads, obviously all of your needs are being met with what already exists.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

We dont need more roads, obviously all of your needs are being met with what already exists.

Like my wife says, its not always about me.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Like my wife says, its not always about me.

Usually they say that when it's all about them though

 

[Bonasababy]

Last weekend, the wife and I went 34 miles up a FS road, found a nice, empty spot along the river, fished for a while, and just enjoyed a beautiful day. I think that is a damn good benefit of a FS road. Two weekends ago my neighbor and I spent the day cutting firewood for his place this winter. Another damn nice benefit of a FS road. The existing road network allows yourself and your coworkers to do the research and management work that you do. I would assume even you would regard that as a benefit. Hard to believe that existing FS roads can some how find a way to provide a benefit, even with the existing negatives, but even one mile of new one would have zero chance.

You have to come up with something positive about new roads that is accurate to make any headway with many here, I suspect. Keep in mind the percentage that is already covered by a road in that assessment.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

My speculation is that reclaiming a road bed, and returning it to a semi original state costs more or less the same as building a road. So, I just see the mile for a mile as even more spending, to maintain a mythical status quo.

I build and reclaim roads all day long. It's not even close on cost. Reclaim is much cheaper. But given it's the Feds, I would not be surprised if both were 5 times the cost of the private sector.

 

[shootbrownelk]

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.

Can anyone attest to ANY administration being forthright about anything? They're all lying bastards, Democrat & Republicans alike.