Roadless rule repeal

[Fritz the Cat]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...S&cvid=68becbad73914cfca37a885c8cac87b7&ei=42

Federal government moves ‘Roadless Rule’ one step closer to repeal​

In late June, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced at the Western Governors’ Association in New Mexico that the USDA would be repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule.

It’s a policy that prohibits the building of roads on 44.7 million acres of public lands (which was initially 58.5 million, but several states have carved out exceptions for themselves) that was implemented to conserve and protect just 2% of remaining American ecosystems from development.


That small percentage is a massive amount of land representing about 30% of the entire area managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

The rule was implemented after three years of analysis, with an exhaustive collaborative process that included over 400 public meetings, attended by more than 20,000 participants. During the public comment period, 1.6 million submissions were received, of which, about 95% supported roadless protections.

In the last 24 years, however, quite a bit has changed. Not just in terms of the political temperament of the nation, but what is transpiring in the forests and how land managers believe they are best stewarded.

NDA, and now they have catastrophic fires. There is way more to this article, just submitted a clip. What is interesting back when is they had 1.6 million submissions of which 95% supported roadless rule. Preservation and conservation activists were advised where to find the link to comment in the federal register. Regular Joes didn't comment.

This article included the link to the federal register to comment:

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-0001

To beat an activist, you have to become more active than they are active.

 

[Icepirate]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...S&cvid=68becbad73914cfca37a885c8cac87b7&ei=42

Federal government moves ‘Roadless Rule’ one step closer to repeal​

In late June, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced at the Western Governors’ Association in New Mexico that the USDA would be repealing the 2001 Roadless Rule.

It’s a policy that prohibits the building of roads on 44.7 million acres of public lands (which was initially 58.5 million, but several states have carved out exceptions for themselves) that was implemented to conserve and protect just 2% of remaining American ecosystems from development.


That small percentage is a massive amount of land representing about 30% of the entire area managed by the U.S. Forest Service.

The rule was implemented after three years of analysis, with an exhaustive collaborative process that included over 400 public meetings, attended by more than 20,000 participants. During the public comment period, 1.6 million submissions were received, of which, about 95% supported roadless protections.

In the last 24 years, however, quite a bit has changed. Not just in terms of the political temperament of the nation, but what is transpiring in the forests and how land managers believe they are best stewarded.

NDA, and now they have catastrophic fires. There is way more to this article, just submitted a clip. What is interesting back when is they had 1.6 million submissions of which 95% supported roadless rule. Preservation and conservation activists were advised where to find the link to comment in the federal register. Regular Joes didn't comment.

This article included the link to the federal register to comment:

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS-2025-0001-0001

To beat an activist, you have to become more active than they are active.

What activists are you referring too? The many thousands of western hunters that want to keep these areas roadless???? I'm always a little confused by your posts.

 

[double account removed]

What activists are you referring too? The many thousands of western hunters that want to keep these areas roadless???? I'm always a little confused by your posts.

thats because fritz the cat is doin his and the farm bureaus part spreadin awareness that theres crazy l people out there who think u should be able to just up n hunt without payin somebody hes makin sure we all know that theres land an animals out there for you that could be owned by some rich guy which is insane n then he puts a spin on at the end sayin if you dont agree with him yer not a real republican or sportsman I think its a tactic he learned from the fellas hes always holding hands with at the legislative stuff

 

[Fritz the Cat]

What activists are you referring too? The many thousands of western hunters that want to keep these areas roadless???? I'm always a little confused by your posts.

The only org named in this piece is Trout Unlimited. Pretty much all the same. When a person buys a membership they should give a frying pan as a gift. Get waaaay back in one of those roadless areas and shoot something big, you're going to have to sit down and eat him right there.

 

[Jiffy]

Backpack. If you can’t, stay out.

 

[deleted user]

I shot a muley in Colorado about 5 miles in, across about a mile of deadfall too. The pack out sucked, but I’d take that over side by side traffic any day. Ranchers and other industries with leases get permits to travel roadless areas anyway.

 

[Kurtr]

While roadless areas seem like a dream place full of animals the Frank Church proves different. Fires that nuke the ground are no good and habitat is destroyed for decades as nothing grows. I dont think it always has to be an either or but in todays world no one wants to compromise so nothing gets done and we live in a world of chest thumping

 

[Icepirate]

The only org named in this piece is Trout Unlimited. Pretty much all the same. When a person buys a membership they should give a frying pan as a gift. Get waaaay back in one of those roadless areas and shoot something big, you're going to have to sit down and eat him right there.

Ever hear of quartering out an animal? I can assure I didn't eat an elk right on the spot a few years ago that was a couple miles from the road. It's ok to have to work hard at hunting sometimes.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Im in favor of roads (which in remote areas often amount to nothing more than a barely navigable trails themselves. access trumps conservation IMO, there arent millions of people that are going to drag race on back country roads, and a lot of people cannot hike miles and miles to hunt. We have plenty of habitat already. Really the only people that favor locking up millions of acres of public land via inacessibility are those who benefit from it directly themselves or are wacky tree huggers.

 

[Bfishn]

There are many more easily accessible places in this country than there are roadless. Keep the wild places wild, so not every inch of this country are destroyed by idiots.

 

[Icepirate]

Im in favor of roads (which in remote areas often amount to nothing more than a barely navigable trails themselves. access trumps conservation IMO, there arent millions of people that are going to drag race on back country roads, and a lot of people cannot hike miles and miles to hunt. We have plenty of habitat already. Really the only people that favor locking up millions of acres of public land via inacessibility are those who benefit from it directly themselves or are wacky tree huggers.

"access trumps conservation".....not even sure how to respond to that. Or this "We have plenty of habitat already"

or this "those who benefit from it directly themselves or are wacky tree huggers"

guess I'm a whacky tree hugger for enjoying hunting in peace and quiet away from roads.

 

[ndlongshot]

We have plenty of habitat already.

ND Sage Grouse would beg to differ.

 

[SupressYourself]

Yeah, put me in the "wacky tree hugger" camp too.

I've packed elk out on foot 8+ miles before. Yeah, it sucked, but I much prefer that over the fleets of morons on their ATVs. There's something special about places you can only reach on foot. When I get older and my body starts throwing parts, I may have a different opinion, but I doubt it. The backcountry ain't for everyone.

 

[Kurtr]

Roads dont have to be for everyone just put a gate there. But logging and actually managing the habitat has a place in there and access for fire fighting. I have hiked along ways back in places and used lamas and i dont want that destroyed but i also dont want the fires to keep turning areas into a moon scape that is good for nothing.

 

[deleted user]

Thing is the areas considered roadless are pretty few and far between. That and there are access and service trails within most of them, just not accessible to public motorized travel. I’d love to see better fire management out west and I think responsible logging benefits habitat in the long term but I don’t really see the benefit of this.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Good thinking Kurt. As Suppres Yourself mentioned he possibly could change his mind when he gets old.

Being good servants of the land doesn't mean one should be a preservationist they should be conservationists. Land and timber can be utilized but management can include restricting some travle modes, some recreation use, or everyone for chosen months of the year.

Fire is natural and often beneficial.

 

[Jiffy]

I’m 52 and need a new hip. Still strap the pack on every year…so far.

 

[Lycanthrope]

"access trumps conservation".....not even sure how to respond to that. Or this "We have plenty of habitat already"

or this "those who benefit from it directly themselves or are wacky tree huggers"

guess I'm a whacky tree hugger for enjoying hunting in peace and quiet away from roads.

there will always be plenty of places to hunt away from roads. simply allowing roads doesnt fund them or mandate they be built. Roads are expensive and there will always be less accessible places for people to hunt. This will just help take the federal govt out of the mix and allow more local control over what is done. Thats what we want as conservatives right?

Ill admit the habitat comment was not stated well, but roads simply dont take up that much space, I dont think they are going to destroy enough habitat to make much difference one way or another. I feel real reason people here are opposing roads is because it increases competition for access to resources they want to keep for themselves. Im willing to listen to arguments opposing this though.

One could argue that access to remote areas would allow better management of habitat and possibly planting of food plots etc that might actually benefit wildlife in some of those areas.

 

[Lycanthrope]

ND Sage Grouse would beg to differ.

Do you have evidence that roads have caused the sage grouses problems? Roads simply do not take up that much land. its not an either or thing when it comes to conservation, you can have roads AND have habitat. Most animals do not require isolation from roads to thrive.

 

[Narcs]

Do you have evidence that roads have caused the sage grouses problems? Roads simply do not take up that much land. its not an either or thing when it comes to conservation, you can have roads AND have habitat. Most animals do not require isolation from roads to thrive.

Not sure how to respond to this. You can’t be serious?