I am a 71 year-old man and a lifetime resident of Sheridan, Wyoming. I have lived in Sheridan my entire life, except briefly during undergraduate school in Tempe, Arizona; Billings, Montana; and Laramie, Wyoming (where I also attended law school). Since my preschool years and throughout my youth, and continuing throughout my adulthood until now, I have used and enjoyed the public lands of this country, in particular those comprising the Bighorn National Forest west of Sheridan, Wyoming. That use has included hunting, fishing, camping, motorcycle riding, snowmobiling, alpine and nordic skiing, and hiking. Also, my family has owned a cabin subject to a special use permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service since approximately 1960. Numerous members of my family, including but my spouse, children and grandchildren, siblings and nieces and nephews, continue to use that cabin extensively. Additionally, I served the Forest Service in the Bighorn National Forest as an undergraduate intern for one college semester.
These numerous variable experiences on the Forest have educated and informed me well of the many different positive opportunities for many people who have had the privilege of enjoying these lands. Unfortunately, I have also seen the extensive abuses of that land by certain users who for some reason are irresponsible in their use of those lands by operation of motorized vehicles.
I have personally witnessed extensive degradation of the National Forest lands by such irresponsible actions, and particularly many years ago before the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was promulgated. Based upon my personal experiences, the positive effect of the Roadless Rule in controlling and even stopping those abuses has been undeniable to me. As a result, my review of the USDA Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) gave me grave concerns with the Alternative Actions proposed by the USDA other than the "No Action" Alternative 1, which is the only Alternative Action listed in the DEIS I support. I vehemently oppose proposed Alternatives 2 and 3, which I believe would completely remove the vital protections this Rule has provided since its promulgation for fresh drinking water, necessary wildlife habitat, and the many recreational uses afforded on these lands. In my personal experience over these many years, the Roadless Rule has been vital in providing those necessary protections against such abuses.
The assertion by the USDA that the rescission of this Rule would allow more effective responses to wildfires is clearly misplaced, and is undeniably proven inaccurate by the extensive scientific studies which establish that the majority of wildfires ignite within a quarter mile of a road (for obvious reasons). Thus, such a rescission would actually aid in the start of more wildfires in remote forest areas. I am certain this is not something the residents of Sheridan, Wyoming, are interested in.
The proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule also makes no financial sense, contrary to the arguments of the USDA. The current backlog of the United States Forest Service road maintenance nationally reveals a funding deficit for such of $9 Billion. I have personally experienced an unreasonable delay for the local Forest Service office (through no direct fault of its own) to provide needed repair or maintenance on the roads providing access to numerous permitted cabins. How would opening U.S. Forest Service lands to more motorized access through the construction of new roads make financial sense if they are not able to afford current road maintenance needs?
In summary, I know the current Roadless Rule is strongly supported by most users of such federal lands. To rescind it as proposed is nonsensical and not in the public interest.