I am vehemently opposed to the repeal of the Roadless Rule for countless reasons. As a lifelong Oregonian and professional in the field of Environmental Advising, the repeal of the Roadless Rule would only lead to further degradation of the few intact forest ecosystems that remain in the United States.
Roadless Areas function as one of the last reprieves from the environmental destruction caused by capitalism that runs rampant throughout our government and society. The effort to repeal the Roadless Rule is an obvious effort put forth by the current administration to allow additional logging and resource harvest from these Roadless Areas. The proposal to repeal the Roadless Rule falsely claims that it will help in the fight against wildfires, however, studies have shown that the more roadways through an area, the more ignitions. Additionally, a recent study from the University of Oregon authored by Kilbride et al. (https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70411) concluded no significant difference between the amount of lands burned in Roadless Areas versus developed areas. Thus, greater supporting the fact that the claims surrounding any benefits that repealing the Roadless Rule would have, are entirely false.
Roadless Areas function not only as intact ecosystems providing habitat for both humans and animals, but they also protect our clean water and provide some of the last safe havens for endangered species (for which protections under the current administration have systematically been being diminished). Roadless Areas are also protected from invasive species that would be brought in from road traffic, logging, and additional human disruption.
Not only do Roadless Areas have both intrinsic and extrinsic value for the ecosystem benefits they provide, but they also have indescribable inherent value. These places harbor old growth trees older than the society in which we live in. They have spiritual value. Walking into these places is a special gift that not many people get to experience. We should be preserving these places for future generations to also get to experience the beauty of nature and the landscapes that we get to live in. Government agencies and resource extraction companies should not be allowed to disrupt these places for economic benefit, let alone any reason at all.
Additionally, to claim that adding roads to Roadless Areas would be positive for fighting wildfires only contributes to the ideology of wildfire suppression that has got us to the point of fuel loading that we’re at today. Chad Hanson’s book, “Smokescreen”, does an excellent job at exposing how resource extraction companies and government agencies promote a false narrative of logging as a way to combat wildfire. In fact, logging only increases wildfire risk by adding slash to the landscape and by increasing solar radiation subsequently drying out ground fuels and adding to the flammability of ladder fuels. I believe if you were to show anyone a logged landscape versus a post-fire landscape, they would be able to distinguish how much more beautiful and healthy a post-fire landscape can be compared to a post-logging landscape.
Logging disrupts soils, plant communities, wetlands, rivers, streams, and habitats, it also adds chemicals, invasive species, and trash into the landscape. In post-fire areas you’ll find an abundance of bird species, ungulates, predators and prey species, not to mention some of the most beautiful displays of wildflowers, amongst many other animals and plants. When left in the landscape, large timber, both burned or unburned, can retain moisture much better than the small diameter remnants left on the ground from logging.
I could go on and on about how ridiculous this proposal to repeal the Roadless Rule is and how passionately I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Rule as a taxpaying citizen. The role of government is to represent the people, it is not to represent corporate interest or personal gain within a capitalist economy and government structure. Please listen to reason. The logging, destruction and development of our public lands is directly adverse to the wants and needs of the American people. The only proposed alternative I support is “Alternative 1”, which is to retain the existing Roadless Rule (“No Action”).