Roadless Rule

[WiTrapHuntFish]

What is everyone’s perspective on this I’m from Wisconsin we don’t have any deep wilderness in our national forests there’s roads everywhere. I’m for less roads but I also understand if done right could lead to better management and habitat. But I worry about impacts of more pressure on wildlife.

 

[elkduds]

What is everyone’s perspective on this I’m from Wisconsin we don’t have any deep wilderness in our national forests there’s roads everywhere. I’m for less roads but I also understand if done right could lead to better management and habitat. But I worry about impacts of more pressure on wildlife.

It is Project 2025 attack on public lands plan B. Plan A was the budget amendment to sell public lands. Strongly opposed.

 

[sapperJ24]

Congressionally designated wilderness and areas covered by the roadless rule are not synonymous. Rescission of the roadless rule would not impact areas within wilderness, but could impact areas adjacent to wilderness.

In a very broad comment, areas in many forests were selected for inclusion under the roadless rule for various reasons including a lack of merchantable/desirable timber, technology didn't exist to extract timber, soils/geology prevented roads from being constructed, and/or terrian was too rugged.

It seems likely that a rescission would result in a very small amount of additional timber being cut without incurring a significant financial loss. There are likely areas/forests where this will be less true, and maybe others where this is an understatement.

More roads always equals more pressure.

 

[Wild Bill]

“Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man. He forces one soil to nourish the products of another, one tree to bear the fruit of another. He mixes and confuses the climates, the elements, the seasons.”
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 

[NECALI]

My opinion is it’s a good thing to get rid of. We already have millions of acres of wilderness. We have had old roads that were blocked off every few years restricting public access to only those willing and able to walk in. It gave the Forest supervisors and the environmentalists a warm fuzzy feeling. What about all of the older people and the handicapped? It took away their ability to enjoy allot of our national forest. I hope they reopen all of the roads they’ve closed. The problem with closing them in the first place was it congregated more people to the roads that were left open. When open it would spread people out and equal less congestion. Case in point. We used to live about a half hour away from a lake in North Eastern CA. One year they blocked off about 80% of the little access roads. That overcrowded the few that remained. Then a few years ago they opened them back up. It was wonderful to be able to find a spot on the lake that wasn’t crowded again. Win for the people and the environment. Less erosion from overcrowding.

 

[Straight Arrow]

My opinion is it’s a good thing to get rid of. We already have millions of acres of wilderness. We have had old roads that were blocked off every few years restricting public access to only those willing and able to walk in. It gave the Forest supervisors and the environmentalists a warm fuzzy feeling. What about all of the older people and the handicapped? It took away their ability to enjoy allot of our national forest. I hope they reopen all of the roads they’ve closed. The problem with closing them in the first place was it congregated more people to the roads that were left open. When open it would spread people out and equal less congestion. Case in point. We used to live about a half hour away from a lake in North Eastern CA. One year they blocked off about 80% of the little access roads. That overcrowded the few that remained. Then a few years ago they opened them back up. It was wonderful to be able to find a spot on the lake that wasn’t crowded again. Win for the people and the environment. Less erosion from overcrowding.

As a lifelong Montanan who treasures the wild places, I respectfully but adamantly disagree on several points. IMO the wilderness which exists is insufficient to sustain the wild and is continuously adversely impacted. As an octogenarian, wild places are still open to me but just takes slower, more careful steps. Unfortunately "handicapped" folks have been dealt a deficit in life ... but usually find other rewarding aspects. Most would not value a road to the top of Mt Ranier!
The rule is not about existing roads which have been closed ... it's mostly about wild places where no roads now exist! Sadly the assumption of easing overcrowding will be false, as history shows that the truly cherished places will just become more crowded due to easy access and the places will diminish in desired qualities.
As far as "erosion", more roads mean more real soil erosion and reduced quality and holding capacity of critical watersheds and lakes/reservoirs which produce the water we need.
Let's not forget the legacy of conservation and protection of wild places which was the catalyst for the debates, discussions, and thoughtful legislation which produced the roadless areas. It was not just on a whim that this nation decided to preserve treasured landscapes, so let's not destroy them on a whim to allow your new 4 wheel drive to carry you and your Yeti cooler to the used-to-be wild, hard-to-get-to places.

 

[SAJ-99]

My opinion is it’s a good thing to get rid of. We already have millions of acres of wilderness. We have had old roads that were blocked off every few years restricting public access to only those willing and able to walk in. It gave the Forest supervisors and the environmentalists a warm fuzzy feeling. What about all of the older people and the handicapped? It took away their ability to enjoy allot of our national forest. I hope they reopen all of the roads they’ve closed. The problem with closing them in the first place was it congregated more people to the roads that were left open. When open it would spread people out and equal less congestion. Case in point. We used to live about a half hour away from a lake in North Eastern CA. One year they blocked off about 80% of the little access roads. That overcrowded the few that remained. Then a few years ago they opened them back up. It was wonderful to be able to find a spot on the lake that wasn’t crowded again. Win for the people and the environment. Less erosion from overcrowding.

So it sounds like you want to drive to wilderness?

 

[Hammsolo]

My opinion is it’s a good thing to get rid of. We already have millions of acres of wilderness. We have had old roads that were blocked off every few years restricting public access to only those willing and able to walk in. It gave the Forest supervisors and the environmentalists a warm fuzzy feeling. What about all of the older people and the handicapped? It took away their ability to enjoy allot of our national forest. I hope they reopen all of the roads they’ve closed. The problem with closing them in the first place was it congregated more people to the roads that were left open. When open it would spread people out and equal less congestion. Case in point. We used to live about a half hour away from a lake in North Eastern CA. One year they blocked off about 80% of the little access roads. That overcrowded the few that remained. Then a few years ago they opened them back up. It was wonderful to be able to find a spot on the lake that wasn’t crowded again. Win for the people and the environment. Less erosion from overcrowding.

You’re going to get a ton of push back here. I vehemently disagree. People don’t have a right to access. I am a proud conservationist, and there’s a reason the “Mile Rule” exists. Like @Big Fin and others teach, get away from the roads and you’ll find the animals. I’ve killed game due to my drive since I was a kid, despite my lack of intelligence and skill. As a person that’s torture tested my body, I know there will be days I can’t get away from roads.

I’m not even sure about having closed roads. We struggle immensely with them around Spokane. I’ve hiked miles elk hunting only to find side by sides ripping around on them. The average person is lazy, not saying you are. They will take short cuts and Dream of dropping a mature buck or Bull from the side of the road.

I dream of the story, hiking a mile and a half post knee surgery to pack a buck out. He was a doink, but 6 weeks post surgery was awesome. I‘ve had too many damn surgeries, have been offered handicap status and passed, but will be passing on road hunting.

 

[Matthew57]

My opinion is it’s a good thing to get rid of. We already have millions of acres of wilderness. We have had old roads that were blocked off every few years restricting public access to only those willing and able to walk in. It gave the Forest supervisors and the environmentalists a warm fuzzy feeling. What about all of the older people and the handicapped? It took away their ability to enjoy allot of our national forest. I hope they reopen all of the roads they’ve closed. The problem with closing them in the first place was it congregated more people to the roads that were left open. When open it would spread people out and equal less congestion. Case in point. We used to live about a half hour away from a lake in North Eastern CA. One year they blocked off about 80% of the little access roads. That overcrowded the few that remained. Then a few years ago they opened them back up. It was wonderful to be able to find a spot on the lake that wasn’t crowded again. Win for the people and the environment. Less erosion from overcrowding.

I respectfully disagree. Hunting around where I live, I’ve never once thought “man, I wish there were more roads.”

 

[Treeshark]

Hunting around where I live, I’ve never once thought “man, I wish there were more roads.”

I agree with the thought of not wanting more roads. I have, however, wished for more logging many times.

It would be nice to see an increase in timber harvest, but I don’t know that lack of roads are what is holding that back (I suspect it’s not).

 

[Matthew57]

I agree with the thought of not wanting more roads. I have, however, wished for more logging many times.

It would be nice to see an increase in timber harvest, but I don’t know that lack of roads are what is holding that back (I suspect it’s not).

There’s certainly some opportunities for logging. A lot of the places around me that could be logged more, there already exists roads and no roadless rule.

 

[Treeshark]

A lot of the places around me that could be logged more, there already exists roads and no roadless rule.

I’ve seen the same scenario in several of the areas I hunt. Plenty of roads, but very little logging going on.

Which to me then begs the question: what is the actual goal of this?

 

[Matthew57]

I’ve seen the same scenario in several of the areas I hunt. Plenty of roads, but very little logging going on.

Which to me then begs the question: what is the actual goal of this?

Great question. Feels like virtue signaling to me, but maybe something to do with other states like Alaska? Not sure.

 

[Matthew57]

By the way, I left a comment here:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

 

[Treeshark]

Great question. Feels like virtue signaling to me, but maybe something to do with other states like Alaska? Not sure.

Could be, good point. I also thought perhaps a way to backfill/replace Canadian imports. But again- does the current access not already allow for this?

Let’s say logging does increase- do we even have the milling infrastructure to process here in the US?

I hate to be cynical and suspect an anterior motive, but with this admin…

 

[TheTone]

I’ve seen the same scenario in several of the areas I hunt. Plenty of roads, but very little logging going on.

Which to me then begs the question: what is the actual goal of this?

Pandering to constituents and probably some resource extraction. As I said in another thread, probably see some logging at a loss to send logs to mills that don’t exist or are already at capacity

 

[Matthew57]

Pandering to constituents and probably some resource extraction. As I said in another thread, probably see some logging at a loss to send logs to mills that don’t exist or are already at capacity

Looks like your state is going to keep its roadless rule for what it’s worth.

 

[TheTone]

Somehow I’d bet the state legislature would move to dismantle it if the federal one goes away

 

[TOGIE]

colorado won't lose it's roadless rule either under this if it goes, as far as i know.

i think it's a pretty concrete fact that the current roadless rule and areas currently designated as roadless is not in any way a significant hindrance to increasing logging or accessing more available timber.

i'm thinking one of the greatest obstacles to increasing timber harvest on the already ridiculously large amount of public land currently available is things like environmental review, lawsuits, and basic economics.

i suspect the prime motivation for this is pandering and that it's one small step in the greater plan to minimize the feds role in all things public land, for the long con.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... the prime motivation for this is pandering ...

Keep in mind that there are more and more groups such as Montana's Citizens for Balanced Use (balanced abuse ), snowmobile manufacturers, snowmobile enthusiasts, electric bikers, mountain bikers, and others who are gaining increasing political influence and are all in for more and more roads for motorized and bike use.