Roadless Rule

[TOGIE]

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.

absolutely, good point. and in the near term it's probably my least favorite thing about this.

chatgpt reassures me that the feds also trying to rescind colorado's specific regulation would be politically and legally difficult. i sure hope so.

 

[Treeshark]

snowmobile enthusiasts, electric bikers, mountain bikers, and others

While it often bums me out when I encounter those people enjoying their hobbies while I’m enjoying mine (hunting), it’s their land just as much as ours.

I try not to demonize those people enjoying public lands in a different way than I do. Besides, they may prove useful allies at some point down the road.

 

[Irrelevant]

Both the logging and fire management arguments are straw men. We can't fund the staffing or maintenance or fire management on the acres already roaded up.

 

[Straight Arrow]

While it often bums me out when I encounter those people enjoying their hobbies while I’m enjoying mine (hunting), it’s their land just as much as ours.

I try not to demonize those people enjoying public lands in a different way than I do. Besides, they may prove useful allies at some point down the road.

Don't misunderstand my attitude. I support and encourage those hobbies for those who enjoy them. And there is plenty of spaces and places for those hobbies. I just don't want them expanded and intruding on wild places and wildlife habitat to the extent of adverse impacts. Unfortunately that is the present trend and the problems would only be exacerbated by more and more roads and related development.

 

[Treeshark]

I just don't want them expanded and intruding on wild places and wildlife habitat to the extent of adverse impacts.

That already happens with those user groups. It certainly happens with the impact from hunters as well. It’s easy to draw the line right on the other side of where it starts to impact us.

Is the sole purpose of NF land wildlife preservation? If so, we may have to rethink a lot of what we are doing as hunters.

I do get your point and don’t mean to be pedantic about it. Just trying to focus on the risk of targeting other recreational user groups of public land- that can go bad in a hurry.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Is the sole purpose of NF land wildlife preservation? If so, we may have to rethink a lot of what we are doing as hunters.

Certainly NOT, but you seem to ignore the history and fact that hunters have continuously and most significantly improved and acquired wildlife habitat ... landscapes of wild places and spaces which results in a much larger conservation and preservation effort on public lands. (Consider RMEF, Ducks Unlimited, many others). Most other user groups cannot and do not advocate nor provide the money, volunteerism, and support for conservation of public lands as the hunting community and legacy has and continues to do so.

 

[COEngineer]

Not sure how many other states this applies to, but this is a really good and short write-up of the issue in CO: https://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/...cle_8e77dd33-fd4b-4251-a331-1101e7a4a9a5.html

 

[TOGIE]

Not sure how many other states this applies to, but this is a really good and short write-up of the issue in CO: https://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/...cle_8e77dd33-fd4b-4251-a331-1101e7a4a9a5.html

two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. but it's a good point.

so long as the administration provides ample space for the states to create and manage their own roadless rules, like colorado and idaho, then maybe we do indeed strike the right balance. we'll see.

 

[COEngineer]

two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. but it's a good point.

so long as the administration provides ample space for the states to create and manage their own roadless rules, like colorado and idaho, then maybe we do indeed strike the right balance. we'll see.

You lost me. What are the two wrongs? The article is advocating for what CO did, which was a long public process that engaged all the local (state) constituents.

 

[TOGIE]

You lost me. What are the two wrongs? The article is advocating for what CO did, which was a long public process that engaged all the local (state) constituents.

i felt the article spend a lot of time complaining that clinton's broad, expedited, and unilateral roadless was out of line, so therefore trump doing the same thing in reverse is not so bad.

i can't imagine states besides idaho and colorado didn't have the opporunity to create their own roadless rules when bush extended the offer? so why didn't they and what makes this time different?

 

[SAJ-99]

i felt the article spend a lot of time complaining that clinton's broad, expedited, and unilateral roadless was out of line, so therefore trump doing the same thing in reverse is not so bad.

I find the author's argument a bit disingenuous. I asked myself if it should require the same review process for a declaration to do nothing to an area (remain roadless) as it does to declare something to be allowed to be done (roads)? The NEPA complaint he makes doesn't hold up to that question.

I really want to know what he would consider being "done right"? The end result is either allow roads or no roads. Bringing the decision to the state level might allow locals who would get the financial benefit or feel the most harm to drive the decision. This sounds like it could be good but it isn't their resource alone, it is everyone's.

 

[Straight Arrow]

i can't imagine states besides idaho and colorado didn't have the opporunity to create their own roadless rules when bush (sic) extended the offer? so why didn't they and what makes this time different?

This statement reads like support of PLT. Why does it seem so difficult to distinguish federal public lands and their national ownership and authority versus state public lands for which the states have ownership and authority? The rhetoric reflecting this confusion seems frequent.

Bush offered what and what was his authority?

 

[Elky Welky]

My and @mtnkid85's thoughts here:

https://dailymontanan.com/2025/08/28/want-more-elk-and-hunting-opportunities-keep-the-roadless-rule/

 

[TOGIE]

This statement reads like support of PLT. Why does it seem so difficult to distinguish federal public lands and their national ownership and authority versus state public lands for which the states have ownership and authority? The rhetoric reflecting this confusion seems frequent.

Bush offered what and what was his authority?

I think you’re misinterpreting my point; perhaps it was poorly made.

 

[Ben Lamb]

nice work, @Elky Welky & @mtnkid85.

A good timeline on the issue: https://earthjustice.org/feature/timeline-of-the-roadless-rule

Some more good reading: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46504

 

[Dougfirtree]

That already happens with those user groups. It certainly happens with the impact from hunters as well. It’s easy to draw the line right on the other side of where it starts to impact us.

Is the sole purpose of NF land wildlife preservation? If so, we may have to rethink a lot of what we are doing as hunters.

I do get your point and don’t mean to be pedantic about it. Just trying to focus on the risk of targeting other recreational user groups of public land- that can go bad in a hurry.

National Forests are supposed to support multiple uses, including wildlife habitat. But if you have species that need large roadless areas, more than are represented just by Wilderness areas and National Parks, than that's what they need. Other legitimate uses are best limited to the areas beyond what's needed for those wildlife species. People who think they need the roads can use the other 70% of USFS lands, most BLM lands and the vast majority of the land in our country...

 

[geetar]

I'm 100 % against the rule change.

 

[rogerthat]

Yeah this proposal is just more political fodder for the partisan window lickers.

 

[Khunter]

A nice opinion piece on this topic, presume by HTs @Ben Long:

Writers on the Range: Let’s get to restoration and end the roadless rodeo


Ben Long, Writers on the Range



The Roadless Rule that the Trump administration wants to eliminate has not been controversial for 24 years because it is grounded in common sense. Stirring up needless fights over public lands is more about smoke and mirrors than wise management.

The Forest Service manages about 194 million acres. About 58 million acres of national forest are relatively undeveloped. These lands are remote, rocky and rugged, defined by what they don’t have — roads. They’re mostly accessed by trail, except in winter when they might be approached with snowmobiles.

Since the Clinton Administration, these roadless lands have largely been left alone under the policy called the Roadless Rule. No one has complained, as there is plenty of work to do elsewhere. Leeway for management was written into the Roadless Rule, allowing the U.S. Forest Service to manage roadless areas where conditions merit. So why is the current administration so eager to rehash pointless battles?

I’m scratching my head. Perhaps this and other moves take our attention away from the current purges, budget and staff cuts that have left the agency in shambles. Perhaps the political appointees at the head of the Forest Service are themselves stuck in the past, trying to drive forward by looking in the rearview mirror. In any case, there is a wiser way forward.

That is: Stop creating controversy where none exists. This September, the public was given just 21 days to weigh in on repealing the rule. The response demonstrated that no one is asking for the changes the Administration is pushing. Over 99 percent of the 183,000 comments submitted argued against removing the public land protection for roadless lands, according to the Center for Western Priorities, which evaluated the response.

The many conservationists who defend roadless areas tend to do so because these often-remote areas of our national forest are fine as they are and need to be left alone. They provide world-class wildlife habitat, havens for recreation and clean water.

During the Clinton Administration of the 1990s, the Forest Service created an administrative rule that basically said it would no longer build new roads into pristine forests, focusing instead on maintaining its existing backlog of 370,000 miles of roads. Any frequent visitor to our national forests will tell you that too many of these roads are fraught with ruts, deadfalls and washouts.

High-elevation roadless areas never had roads built through them for the simple reason that it’s grossly impractical to build roads there. To do so would require massive government subsidies — first to build the roads and then to maintain them after floods, wildfire or freezing wipes them away.

The administration’s attempt to rescind the Roadless Rule of 2001 is basically a distraction. It takes us away from dealing with the long and time-sensitive “to do” list that hangs over the Forest Service — managing wildfires, clearing trails, fighting flammable weeds, fixing access roads.

Likewise, the extensive trail system of the Forest Service badly needs tender loving care, as do its campgrounds and other infrastructure. Foresters will tell you that many of our national forests have become overgrown because of generations of fire suppression. They need selective logging. But the practical place to begin addressing that expensive but crucial need is at the interface of wildlands and developed lands.

Idaho, a Republican state with more roadless lands than just about any other state, decided to do its own analysis of roadless lands during the 1990s. Idaho found it was fiscal folly to build roads on 99 percent of Idaho’s roadless lands. For context, the review revealed that Idaho roadless areas support some of the state’s best big game hunting, while also providing cold, clear water that native trout, salmon and steelhead need to spawn.

The roadless lands also tended to be poor at growing trees. Idaho’s review even called for stricter protections of some of its roadless lands than what was provided by the Clinton Administration.

Most Americans want our national forests to be well-managed and open for people to enjoy. Roads are an important part of that. But pushing to build new roads in our most rugged areas is a fool’s errand. Let’s restore the national forests, trails and access roads that for too long we’ve allowed to deteriorate.

Ben Long is an outdoorsman, conservationist and longtime contributor to Writers on the Range, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He lives in Kalispell, Montana.

 

[Ben Long]

Thanks for sharing!