“preserving public land that belongs to all of the people”
“unsustainable timber harvesting methods that lack attention to the environments health”
“generate physical pollution from machines such as gasoline, oil, grease, noise pollution, and light pollution”
“overall existence of our land will, without a doubt, get degraded”
What it names
Works cited
Andrews et al. 2015
The comment
Hello all that this may concern. I fully oppose overturning the roadless rule. There is a reason this law was set in place and I fully believe in maintaining this boundary between our need for resources and preserving public land that belongs to all of the people of the United States.
In my time working as a wildlife biologist, mainly for endangered herpetofauna, I have been exposed to many of the downsides that would be exaggerated should the roadless rule be overwritten. Herpetofauna population trends are in serious decline all around the world. Habitat loss is one of the biggest threats as their habitats rely almost solely on the presence of water within their environment. I have seen with my own eyes the impacts roads have had on wetlands and other fragile environments. Roads that have been cut through areas without thought or planning that has caused whole rivers to reroute onto the road, making it impassible by vehicle. I fear this will be the unfortunate case should this rule get overturned. How will it be possible for the constructors of these roads to create a navigate-able roadway without tampering with complex water systems? This would require specialized hydrologists to be present during constitution of every mile and even then, unknown and unforeseen impacts can occur. While reptiles and amphibians are incredibly important for the delicate balance of an ecosystem, the overturning of this rule threatens much more. Whole forests will be altered by adding accessible roadways to parts previously isolated from heavy machinery. Old growth is incredibly important for the overall health of a forest. A singular old growth tree provides a home for walks of all life. The overturning of this rule would put these ecosystems into direct threat by unsustainable timber harvesting methods that lack attention to the environments health and focuses solely on profit. Additionally, this would generate physical pollution from machines such as gasoline, oil, grease, noise pollution, and light pollution the likes that have never been seen in the 44 million acres proposed to be opened up. How will constructors deal with that disturbance? Lastly, if you have not a care for the environment or those living peacefully within it, I ask you to think about the fact that this is land meant for the American people. Listen to all who have spoken out against it. It is our beautiful right as a citizen of the United States that we have access to this land. It is a right I thoroughly enjoy and makes me proud to know our leaders have fought to protect that right in the past. If this rule gets overturned, the overall existence of our land will, without a doubt, get degraded. Fueled purely by greed and done without thinking of alternatives that show sustainability.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment. I trust that the decision that is made will be done with the future of the American people in mind. I mean a long term future where my grandkids will not have to deal with environmental Armageddon.