Roadless Rule Rescinded

Lolz on the rationale. As I understand it the current rule already allows for vegetation management and access for fire suppression.

Moreover, more roads + more people and their junk = more fire risk.
 
I am surprised by the lack of opposition, or at least quietness, to this by certain contingents that have funded numerous studies showing how critical roadless areas are for elk.
 
Omitting politics:

The scale for thinning, logging vs closed off? Pro's/Con's for wildlife?

Maybe better than a blanket - across the board, regardless the setting, we place it in the hands of the District Rangers?
 
Omitting politics:

The scale for thinning, logging vs closed off? Pro's/Con's for wildlife?

Maybe better than a blanket - across the board, regardless the setting, we place it in the hands of the District Rangers?
I think that would be way better.

That said, interacting with district Rangers and Public Lands staff over the last two years, locally educated and informed influence - be it internal to the Dept or external to the lessees, recreationists, etc - is the opposite of the direction this administration is heading. It’s top down. Local needs be damned and ignored.
 
They can say whatever they want but I’d say it’s all about making more money off tourism, logging and everything else. They don’t care about the animals and the habitat until someone posts a video of something happening to an animal and everyone gets ticked off then not seeing the root cause of why there are more people to animal interactions where we are in their space not the other way around. The older and older I get the more I want to build a cabin in the middle of nowhere with nothing but tools, gun, the know how to survive and a radio and that’s it. These are the reasons why.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,809
Messages
2,239,021
Members
39,014
Latest member
mnhunter4789
Back
Top