Points/ Comments on the Proposed recission of the Roadless Rule by the US Forest Service.
Submitted by Peter M. Dubinsky, 715 Lincoln Ave, Grove City, PA 16127 Foxrun9@Comcast.net.
I am submitting the following points and comments which support my view that the Proposed recession of the Roadless Rule should not be pursued by the US Forest Service. The Rule should remain in place as written. It is vital to the protection of the public lands and the National Forest lands. My reasons are:
1.As a citizen of the US, a Taxpayer and a believer in the value of conservation of resources the Roadless Rule adds a critical layer of protection for key sections of National Forests which serve as the last places in the US (and the world for that matter) where many species of animals, plants, trees and wildlife in general can prosper and survive.
2.The proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule does not seem to be based on any supporting data or information indicating a change in the rule is needed to support some national need. Instead, the recission appears based on the whim of the administration to open roadless areas to the forces of commercial development and recreational activities which will do harm to the land. My wife and I own land close to the Allegheny National Forest in Western Pennsylvania. The Allegheny National Forest already allows certain commercial activities such as timber sales and use of use of off-road vehicles. Such allowances already occur in a large number of National Forest areas in a controlled and planned format. Why open the small areas of the forest to recreational and commercial activity when a large portion is already open? It does not seem to make sense.
3.I noted that the rule will expand the use of recreational vehicles. As a landowner of private property in Western PA, I can attest to the fact that owners of off-road vehicles will, given the opportunity, violate the land by tearing up the soil and woodland with their actions. Keeping ATVs and other off-road vehicles out of our private property is a task itself. I can envision the “off roaders” taking advantage of the National Forest lands as well.
4.If some changes in the Roadless Rule do make sense, why not just establish a new the timeline for States to provide their own proposals for modifying the existing roadless designations. That was part of the original rule, and several states did make proposals and those proposals were accepted. This allows the States, which see it as useful to identify modifications to the existing roadless designations, to do so and explain why. That allows them the control which is a key intent of the proposal. Let the states decide.