Roadless Rule Rescinded

[BuzzH]

My old job says the lid is easily put back on. I had to jump thru a million hoops, know secret handshakes, have a million different keys, a million different combinations, or go to a secret meeting in a secret place to retrieve a secret key to access a secret road to access some cell towers in certain public land areas and these arent even roadless areas.
What im getting at is that you, me, and everyone else tends to go to the absolute extreme case on this stuff.
Im still a no on this but I dont see how unintentionally misleading people on what the actual proposal allows helps. If some random came across this thread they would literally think the bob marshall or wherever is gonna be accessible to the public by endless roads. Maybe im naive but i dont see anything like that ever happening.

There's 380,000 miles of road on FS lands...for comparison the distance around earth at the equator is 24,901 miles.

By what logic do we need more roads on what little is left that isn't roaded to hell and gone?

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

There's 380,000 miles of road on FS lands...for comparison the distance around earth at the equator is 24,901 miles.

By what logic do we need more roads on what little is left that isn't roaded to hell and gone?

We dont.

 

[Sytes]

This whole effort is about something else having nothing to do with timber extraction, local control, and fire suppression. Those are just shiny objects in front of the hook.

Would you expand? What does it involve if not for interest mentioned? No sarcasm intended. Curious what you believe is the purpose. Oil? Mining?

 

[Nameless Range]

Would you expand? What does it involve if not for interest mentioned? No sarcasm intended. Curious what you believe is the purpose. Oil? Mining?

I truly don't know the specifics, but I strongly believe it isn't for any of the things they are advertising - those are chiefly arguments-as-levers. I can imagine just one guy bending the ear of the bigwig(s) pushing this, or I can imagine true believers. I'd guess it's some combination of: hoped-for extractive efforts in specific geographies, dogmatic views on access and wild places, a general view regarding regulations that restrict, to "stick it to" a subset of Americans who have been a P.I.T.A., a favor to some damn lobbyist bending the right ear, etc.

This administration often thinks of the reasons justifying their decisions after the fact, and certainly changes them along the way. In this instance, they are chiefly trying to persuade using timber, fire suppression, local control, and access as arguments. Most westerners are for those things, me included, but just genuinely through working, volunteering, being friends with, and continuing efforts that preceded this administration I am seeing the most insane levels of chaos and resource constraints in our public land agencies that has maybe ever existed. Rescinding the roadless rule isn't gonna really improve any of those criteria meaningfully. Public land managers aren't allowed to act in the interest of the local, don't really have anyone to do the work even if they were allowed to, have to run trivial decisions up the chain never to get an answer, etc. And so the functionality of these agencies has been so diminished it's impossible for me to comport a belief that there's good intentions behind these huge sweeping decisions while at the same time they are unwinding their ability to engage in any good, even if what one deems good is the opposite of what I think is good. I wish I had the words to describe the absolute weirdness, and malice, so many federal employees are experiencing right now and how those agencies are currently operating.

I know that's not much of an answer but: 1) I know the current iteration of the PR campaign behind this does not check out in terms of actually happening, and in some instance, might make the reasons for justification actually worse (fire). 2) This administration, more than any other in my life, does not get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

A gun to my head and pick a side im a no on this. I love being in roadless areas it just feels good.
Anyways this may be a dumb question, but based on comments it sounds like a million roads will be built and every Tom, dick, and Harry will be allowed to drive on them. The way I understand it they would build roads where and when needed for the proper authorities to use to do work. Not for public use and be closed down after the work has been done?

That last part made me giggle a bit. I mean, nice idea. Should work "in theory..."

 

[Straight Arrow]

Curious what you believe is the purpose?

Again ... Drill, Baby, Drill!!!

 

[oxn939]

There's 380,000 miles of road on FS lands...for comparison the distance around earth at the equator is 24,901 miles.

By what logic do we need more roads on what little is left that isn't roaded to hell and gone?

Here's an observation for you. Everyone in conservation currently mobilizing a huge bipartisan pushback against this... and I have yet to see ONE single influencer say a word about it.

Literally the only way they could possibly contribute anything other than pop up ads to society, and they can't even be bothered to speak up.

 

[elkduds]

TRCP Responds to Forest Service Roadless Area Proposal with Call for Collaboration | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Encourages a solution that supports reduced wildfire risk while maintaining backcountry values The U.S. Forest Service released a proposed rule and accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that could alter future management of more than 44 million acres of inventoried roadless...

www.trcp.org