I am a lifelong resident of New York and a mother with an advanced degree in public policy, concentrating in environmental policy. I am writing with strong objection to the proposal to rescind the "roadless rule."
As I raise my child, I look forward to introducing him to the beauty of our nation, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming -- lands that will be impacted by this careless action, should it come to be.
As a policy expert, I commend efforts to ensure that those with the most familiarity with the land, local land managers, have the ability and resources needed to care for the vibrant and invaluable ecosystems that we entrust them to conserve. I also commend efforts to directly deal with the climate change-related risks that we face, including wildfire. Repealing the "roadless rule" does neither. Local land managers are not afforded more resources if this rule is erased. Instead, pressures of development and resource extraction will compete with the interests of conservation. In fact, that seems to be the point of this proposal rather than the stated objectives of local autonomy and forest fire prevention. The purpose of the proposal is to open the way to extracting natural resources for profit as is made clear by the explicit call-outs in the USDA press release to alignment with Executive Order 14225, Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production; Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy; and Executive Order 14153, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential.
It is in the interest of our nation and our children to protect federal lands from extraction and development, and it must be a priority of the Forest Service.