“pits hikes and sightseers against large, heavy timber trucks”
“An increase in timber roads will put more Americans in danger”
The comment
I object to the proposed rule rescinding the "roadless rule." As an American hiker and driver on existing roads, I have had personal experiences that are relevant to the decision. The current rule provides both access to recreational users of public forest lands as well as approved timber activity. The current intersection of these activities is working, and at times can be dangerous. For example, the intersection of timber trucks through a potion of the Redwood Forest pits hikes and sightseers against large, heavy timber trucks. An increase in timber roads will put more Americans in danger. Americans that pay taxes and use their public lands versus companies that take the public resources for private profit. Absolutely no private business would turn over it's property to other private interests to only the benefit of those other private businesses, especially considering such choice might cut into the profitability of other economic activities. Thus, the federal government should not turn over its land to private business when such action is not done at the market rate for such activities and when it reduces the economic development of competing activities, such as hiking, hunting, fishing, and other profitable recreational activities. Additionally the economic benefits of maintaining public land must be considered and not discounted in the analysis of the rule. Any consideration of rescission of the rule must calculate the loss, both direct and indirectly to local areas, of economic value that new roads or loss of certainty in use of the public lands causes. Additionally, any consideration of changing the current rule should take into account the desires of the taxpayers. Without this data, repeal of the rule is made without considering the entirety of the data and situation and is a transgression against the citizens of the United States of America.