My name is Scott McGee, and I work on USFS lands and hold a concession permit with the Bridger-Teton National Forest, so Roadless Areas are integral to my livelihood.
With about half of all National Forest land already open to drilling, logging, and mining, and less than twenty percent protected as Wilderness, remote Roadless Landscapes - and the clean air and water, intact habitat, pristine forests they, and the unparalleled opportunities for recreation they encompass - are a significant and integral piece to the wildland network here in Wyoming and across the country. Rescission of the Roadless Rule would expose these areas to timber extraction and other threats.
Proponents of Roadless Rule rescission argue that doing so is necessary to expand timber and energy development to increase revenue, to more effectively manage wildfires, and to increase local control. Studies have shown, however, that invalidating the Roadless Rule and opening backcountry forests to new roads will do nothing to prevent wildfires, and will likely exacerbate the issue. Studies also show that the investment made by protecting these forests far outweighs the short-term monetary gain, if any, that would be made from extractive activities. And, as past public comment periods show, locals have clearly expressed their desire to keep roadless area protections in place.
I strongly support the “No Action” Alternative 1 that would maintain protections for our Roadless Forests, and strongly oppose Alternatives 2 and 3, which would strip their protections.
Roadless Areas are critical to fresh drinking water, animal habitat, and opportunities for recreational access.
I call 'Baloney' on claims that this action is in order to better respond to wildfire using the science that the majority of wildfires start within a quarter mile of a road.
I would like to remind the USDA that they cannot afford the roads already on our National Forest lands , making it irresponsible and nonsensical to build more.
Out of a very lengthy list of reasons to keep the Roadless Rule in place, perhaps the most relevant and important argument is that it is what the American people, whose public lands it protects, are in overwhelming favor of!