“Compromising these values by roads makes no sense”
What it names
Works cited
Andrews et al. 2015
The comment
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
A large part of my opposition centers on wildlife habitat. By that I include not just vertebrates but invertebrates as well. More public access is certainly disruptive to big game habitat and consequently all species, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects and fish are affected and all are important to an intact ecosystem.
Currently, there are hundreds of thousands of miles of Forest Service and BLM roads. All these roads come at a cost to build and maintain. Adding more cost to the Forest Service, which is already stretched thin, does not seem logical.
Wildfires are a great concern and fighting them takes a large portion of the Forest Service budget. The Forest Service has determined that the majority of wildfires begin along or near roads. Creating more roads and consequently more public access would likely cause more fires. With a drier climate fires are consuming more acreage and increasing the danger to homes in the Wildland Urban Interface, building more roads and therefore more access, again doesn't seem logical.
There are aesthetic values as well to roadless areas. Values that cannot be figured on a spreadsheet, but exist just the same. Compromising these values by roads makes no sense and the damage takes a very long time to undo.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.A
Sincerely,
Pete Clarkson
Montana