“lead to increased criminal activity in backcountry areas”
“make it more difficult to patrol the forest”
“Building roads directly results in elevated crime levels”
The comment
I am writing to express my strong support for keeping the roadless rule intact. I have spent countless hours hiking, camping, and fishing in roadless areas in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, and it is imperative to me that these areas remain protected and roadless. As a professional photographer, roadless, wild, natural spaces are integral to my work. If protections are weakened, and these places are subject to road building and other destructive activities, it will reduce my access to wild, undisturbed spaces, negatively impacting both my ability to earn a living, and my enjoyment of the outdoors. If the roadless rule is rescinded, it will also exacerbate fire danger and lead to increased criminal activity in backcountry areas. Roads greatly increase the risk of fire, through additional opportunities for human-caused fire starts, the introduction of flammable invasive species, and exacerbated heat/drought/wind. Additional roads will also make it more difficult to patrol the forest, leading to more criminal activity in these areas. I have personally observed how areas with extensive road networks are subject to increased criminal activity, while areas with few or no roads see significantly reduced criminal activity. Building roads directly results in elevated crime levels in rural and backcountry areas.
Also, at the end of the day, roadless areas are beautiful and irreplaceable, and once developed can never be fully restored. They deserve to remain protected under the roadless rule, and hopefully one day to become designated wilderness.