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

[IDiot]

What was the percentage of public comments in favor of recinding the roadless rule? Single digits. Compared to over 90% in support of keeping the roadless rule. RMEF doesn't need to be tepid about this, they know roads have more negative impacts on habitat than positives. They are just trying to play the cooperation game, which is fine. Better than being shut out of conversations.

I am 100% supportive of District manager's holding the discretion to close/open roads as found necessary for biologist / science concerns.

I think most people agree with you but I worry about these folks getting canned for standing up for the resource and not folding to political pressure. When I hear politicians say we need more local control I think that means it is cheaper for extractive industry to buy state level politicians than federal. How many of the commenters in support of the roadless rule have a local forest? How many locals support mining upstream of the boundary waters? It's all a crock.

 

[Sytes]

Not able to disagree with your post. I value a respectful response that lays out stats supporting your position. That said;

I am NOT a fan of broad brushstroke elimination of reasonable road open/closed district ranger discretion.

This action holds value for District discretion which STILL permits public hearings / comment.

The great aspect - this action is frowned on due to the larger view of our big "Red" administration...

The games we are playing are pandering the political football... IMO.

Cheers though. Appreciate the respectful debate.

 

[TheTone]

. RMEF doesn't need to be tepid about this, they know roads have more negative impacts on habitat than positives. They are just trying to play the cooperation game, which is fine. Better than being shut out of conversations.

My guess/worry is they aren’t trying to be cooperative but are instead saying what will keep sponsors happy and currying favor with politicians

 

[IDiot]

My guess/worry is they aren’t trying to be cooperative but are instead saying what will keep sponsors happy and currying favor with politicians

I agree with you. I wish they had a strong stance on this. If they lose some donors because of it, that's sometimes the cost of keeping your values. Maybe I was cutting them a bit too much slack. That said RMEF currying political favor isn't the worst thing ever.

 

[rogerthat]

I would tend to agree with RMEFs take on this if we had a fed govt working in good faith. We don’t have that. This isn’t the time or the people for this reform.

 

[Bonasababy]

I would tend to agree with RMEFs take on this if we had a fed govt working in good faith. We don’t have that. This isn’t the time or the people for this reform.

This is my take as well.

Walking the line in a normal administration that might listen--fine.

Walking the line in this one where they have no real intention of doing so--and only might do so if there's an overwhelming negative reaction--is doing more to support them than working to stay on their good side.

They ain't listening to anyone unless there is money or political favor offered in exchange.