“loss of economic value from diminishing ideal recreational use”
The comment
I write this as someone who has immense passion for protecting the environment and human health. As a neuroscientist and conservation corp member, I find it very important to work to protect both. There are many, many issues with rescinding the roadless rule. What is the logic behind lying to the people who, despite political party already support the Roadleass Rule, and have scientific studies and professional field experience to argue to keep the rule in tact? Not only are the people passionate about keeping nature undeveloped, there are lots of safety concerns for both human and ecological interactions. Building roads when we can't even afford the infrastructure that already exists everywhere else is such a waste. Not only a waste, but invites numerous hazardous chemicals and damaging processes. We have already seen the destruction and health concerns by development everywhere else. There is NO reason to expand into wild areas. There are however PLENTY of reason to keep the natural untouched lands "undeveloped". Rescinding the rule will threaten wildlife, damage critical ecological function, cause more air, soil, and water pollution, negatively impact human health because of such, increase risk of wildfires from sources of ignition, cause a huge loss of economic value from diminishing ideal recreational use and building massively expensive structures, work in opposition of tribal culture, and the list goes on. I, and many others, write in hopes to keep the Roadless Rule and oppose any rescinding action.