“permanent negative impacts on Tribal sacred lands”
“treaty-reserved resources”
What it names
Roadless areas
South Fork
The comment
Keep the Roadless Rule. Select the "No Action Alternative" to keep the existing rule.
I'm a wildlife biologist, retired. I know first hand the value of roadless lands to wildlife. The Elk, Logging, Roads studies at the University of Montana in the 1970s firmly established the importance of roadless areas to elk security. Research since then has reinforced that fact. The South Fork Grizzly Bear study of the 1980s and 1990s documented the critical importance of roadless areas to grizzly bears. The value of roadless lands to other wildlife species and communities is also well established.
Montanans appreciate wildlife and place a high value on wild lands that support wildlife. Why would you jeopardize all that for this ill-conceived and reckless action? This proposal suggests a not-so-hidden agenda to privatize our valued public lands and resources. It will socialize the risks and costs (we pay) while privatizing the benefits to the few rich and powerful. We are not fooled by this action.
This proposal is intended to promote roadbuilding and industrial development that will not only impact wildlife habitat and population survival, but makes no economic sense. It will degrade important drinking water sources for millions of Americans, spread invasive species and noxious weeds, increase the risk of wildfires (as documented in the draft EIS), and have permanent negative impacts on Tribal sacred lands and treaty-reserved resources. The Forest Service already has a multi-billion dollar deferred road maintenance backlog. Don't add to the problem
This proposal will rob from me and millions of other Americans the opportunity to access quiet recreation sites that contribute to our physical and mental health. Do the right thing for all of us who depend on these areas. Withdraw your proposal, and help keep America great.