The roadless rule creates an environment in which in-tact segments of undeveloped land remain so, providing space for recreating, hunting, fishing, and pursuit of other activities in areas with the character of wilderness. These lands are not inaccessible, only they require effort and adventure to do so. Development and fragmentation is the default direction in which our nation moves. Therefore, it takes purposeful restraint to preserve the status quo. This is the essence of conservative governing. We choose to place restraints on government in order to protect, or conserve, a certain way of life and to protect liberties. It stands to reason that such restraints should also be embraced in the course of federal land management. The roadless rule is such a restraint. While proponents of its repeal argue that the rule restricts access to land and resources, it’s needless reversal merely serves to permanently restrict access to a resource which cannot be recovered once lost: the right and ability to enjoy public lands with true wilderness character.
Arguments for repeal often stress greater resource management ability, including fire response. While such arguments sound credible and laudable in their face, they are shortsighted at best, and without merit or detrimental at worse. It is well documented that the vast majority of wildfires, around 85% according research by this very agency, are human caused. Upwards of 90% of wildfires occur within 1/2 mile of a road according to other research. One can reasonably conclude that greater road access to public lands will only serve to increase fire danger. Fire response resources are already taxed and insufficient for current needs. The argument of greater access simply does not bear out without much greater depth of analysis.
Access to these fires simply is not the factor which leads to the lack of ability to control them. While this commenter agrees with many proponents of the rule’s repeal that aggregate management factors have increased fire risk, the repeal of the roadless rule does not on its own solve this issue, or anywhere near it. However, it does succeed at increasing risk in the short term, with zero guarantee that necessary management changes will follow in suit. As a former wildland firefighter in a remote area of the Sequoia National Forest, I can attest that access is not the factor that leads to out of control wildfires. Rather, overall conditions, both in and out of human control, dictate a fire’s fate. Repeal if the roadless rule does not solve for those within our control.
The government bears a significant burden of proof when the consequences are this high, and the proper action until that burden is met, if it can be met at all, is to take no action. The roadless rule should remain in place.