Roadless Rule Rescinded

[R.K.]

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!

And in light of modern problems- arsonists.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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.

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2026/08/18/usda-acts-remove-roadless-rule-restrictions-exacerbate-rising-wildfire-risk

Roadless Areas | US Forest Service

What's NewOn Aug. 18, 2025, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brook L. Rollins announced that the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement that recommends removing the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will publish in the Federal Register.

www.fs.usda.gov

"Removing the national policy that applies to all roadless areas would allow national forest and grassland leadership to determine how those areas are managed, including where and when to reduce wildfire risk based on local conditions and with public involvement through forest planning. Managing roadless areas through forest plans reduces regulatory burden and provides greater flexibility to guide management of National Forest System lands."

Im not sure i agree with you? This is from the usfs website.

"Leadership" makes me wonder if thats "appointed" leadership.

 

[jimh406]

Im not sure i agree with you? This is from the usfs website.

"Leadership" makes me wonder if thats "appointed" leadership.

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.

 

[Forkyfinder]

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.

Thats a typo.

 

[TheTone]

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!

Oh you mean actual land management activities! Somehow the only thing others seem to qualify as management is having a road to everywhere and resource extraction

 

[BuzzH]

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.

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2026/08/18/usda-acts-remove-roadless-rule-restrictions-exacerbate-rising-wildfire-risk

The problem with your theory is that the experts won't be able to make the decisions, at least not under this BS administration and their reorg plans that make zero sense.

 

[jimh406]

The problem with your theory is that the experts won't be able to make the decisions

I don't have a "theory". Your bias aside, we have no idea what will happen when implemented.

We do know that if we continue the way we are ... there will be no improvement. Maybe that works for you.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't have a "theory". Your bias aside, we have no idea what will happen when implemented.

We do know that if we continue the way we are ... there will be no improvement. Maybe that works for you.

I dont think you understand what improve means...

Something tells me you’re the type of person that improves elk tenderloin with catsup.

 

[Sytes]

We constantly hammer the basis State management over Federal, District identification for necessities and upset how it is such a wide brushstroke overlook the needs within... Yet, politics aside, as Presidents move along...
We have an opportunity to open this for managed abilities within defined areas versus absolute.
It was a crappy idea to begin, IMO.

The Nature Conservancy has shown time and time again the significant benefit thinning, etc has for our wildlife, none the less our forest health and better ability to more effectively manage fires.

Meh, pass the pepper.

 

[BuzzH]

We constantly hammer the basis State management over Federal, District identification for necessities and upset how it is such a wide brushstroke overlook the needs within... Yet, politics aside, as Presidents move along...
We have an opportunity to open this for managed abilities within defined areas versus absolute.
It was a crappy idea to begin, IMO.

The Nature Conservancy has shown time and time again the significant benefit thinning, etc has for our wildlife, none the less our forest health and better ability to more effectively manage fires.

Meh, pass the pepper.

Yeah, we're doing, and have done a real great job of "managing" fire effectively.

We cant manage the "managed" areas...so let's f-up the rest.

 

[Forkyfinder]

We do know that if we continue the way we are ... there will be no improvement. Maybe that works for you.

Curious - why do you think this roadless area is the reoccuring top priority? Seems like there is plenty of work to do elsewhere first.

I would feel more inclined to agree if the existing "non roadless" had been at all "managed" for fire in a significant capacity.

 

[Beignet]

Did I miss the portion of the press release that stated “We’ll be drastically increasing agency budgets to better equip local managers with the tools they need to manage?”