Having more roads into wilderness areas aren’t going to benefit much wildlife.
I think it does benefit wildlife because the wilderness designation prevents new roads from being put in, one of the things necessary for forest management. Proper forest management enhances the habitat for wildlife, replacing what fires used to accomplish in a totally natural environment. The roads also provide access for hunters.
Not sure why you mentioned “FS are often open to hunting” when so are wilderness areas!
Actually I said NF, but I think we are talking the same thing. I mention it just to make the point that going back to NF without the wilderness designation doesn't take the land out of the public domain or make it unavailable to hunters.
We all wish the FS could do better with timber management to improve habitat but that’s on the damn litigators blocking every effort.
I agree completely, but it is not the fault of the current administration but a long standing problem crossing both republican and democrat administrations.
The Wilderness Act was put in place for a reason.
Yes, in part it was put in place to do the same things you are railing against. The Act prevents putting in new roads to access resources such as timber. If the tree huggers had their way all NF lands in the country would be designated wilderness. In my part of Va we have designated wilderness areas that are not wilderness at all. They consist largely of farmland originally purchased or taken from their rightful owners by eminent domain decades ago to create a public recreation area.
All that said, 100 miles seems absurd for the reasons claimed in the article. 5 or 10 miles strikes me as more reasonable.