“What recreational opportunities will be lost to timber management and road building?”
“sacrificed for a couple rounds of timber sales”
“aimed at supporting D. Trump's lumber-selling cronies”
The comment
The 2001 version of the Roadless Rule should remain in place. It has allowed millions of Americans and foreign visitors to enjoy the priceless legacy of US Forest Service public lands at their best. It allows for countless hikers, hunters, naturalists and people who just enjoy the roadless lands more pristine character to recreate with their families and friends in a way that is not available within heavily managed and roaded areas. It just feels different. As a devoted Continental Divide Trail hiker, I am appalled at the new proposal's potential widespread damage to the character of this and other long trails, like the Pacific Crest Trail and the Pacific Northwest Trail. There is an entire economy that has developed around these trails, the roadless areas they traverse, and the countless trail towns that support the hikers in search of the America that used to be: wild, remote and unroaded.
The roadless character created with the 2001 Rule supports an incredible diversity of wildlife that is currently under siege from development and aggressive forest management outside of the current roadless areas. Even when a roadless area is minimal in size or width, it offers a haven that roaded areas don't. What species will be negatively affected by the new proposal? What recreational opportunities will be lost to timber management and road building?
We (the combined Forest Service and Timber industry bean counters) have always begged for more timber, more management, more commodities - while it is plain that we do not have limitless resources, including un-roaded old-growth forest. Why not draw the line now, and save what roadless area we have, instead of making an irreversible decision to go the next step in taming our few wild lands that are left? Once these lands are sacrificed for a couple rounds of timber sales, they will never be the same, and will blend in with the millions of acres of lands suffering from mediocre, fractious and poorly-planned management.
How will the proposal affect water quality in multi-state and multi-county watersheds, that are used to support meager municipal water systems? How many headwaters areas would be affected by new roads aimed at low-cost timber access and transport? The Forest Service has long touted the high quality water that comes from wilderness and roadless areas, so how can this new proposal be considered a benefit when it negatively affects those areas? Which municipalities will see increased water treatment costs from timber road sediment production?
In summary, it appears the new proposal is aimed at supporting D. Trump's lumber-selling cronies, rather than benefiting the average outdoor-loving American. If there are cases where fuel reduction could benefit specific communities, let them propose specific management, including the specific areas to be involved. The USFS should then come up with a proposal that deals with these areas specifically, rather than throwing the entire inventory of Roadless Areas designated i 2001 under the bus.
Sincerely,
Edward Snook
PO Box 452
Darby, MT 59829
trapperpeakview@gmail.com