And in light of modern problems- arsonists.Yep, we have way too many roads without adequate maintenance, noxious weed control, erosion control, and law enforcement to prevent road hunters, mud boggers and other destructive abusers!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And in light of modern problems- arsonists.Yep, we have way too many roads without adequate maintenance, noxious weed control, erosion control, and law enforcement to prevent road hunters, mud boggers and other destructive abusers!
I get that some of you are passionate about this rule because you like to recreate in roadless areas. There are some good reasons why it "could" be good. Of course, it could destroy habitat or improve habitat depending on how it is implemented. For instance, a temporary road could be built to thin underbrush, and then decommissioned.
However, it seems you also want the "experts" to make the decisions. This seems to imply the experts would be making the decisions.
Returning roadless-area decisions to forest-level land management planning provides flexibility the national rule did not. Future land management decisions would be based on natural resource conditions and needs and informed by states, tribes, and communities. Rescinding the rule allows forest managers to address watershed, economic, and wildfire-risk conditions within the sideboards of existing laws, regulations, and policy. That would put those decisions within the same planning framework that guides individual plans throughout the National Forest System.
My quote was from the press release today. Yours was from a year ago. Today's press release says "forest managers", but I guess that can mean anything.Im not sure i agree with you? This is from the usfs website.
"Leadership" makes me wonder if thats "appointed" leadership.