Roadless Rule Attack in the Senate

[phall]

Last night Sen. Lee introduced an amendment to s.140, the Wildfire Protection Act, which will overturn the 2001 roadless rule and prevents the USFS from putting any similar rule in place in the future. text here. This passed SENR Committee on party lines 11-9, so please, call your senators and ask for this to be removed from s.140 or for them to vote no on s.140. This will severely impact how the majority of us hunt and interact with our landscape.

 

[EdP]

How will this impact hunters in a negative way? Doesn't it allow the FS to put in roads to allow more timber harvest, more thinning and controlled burns, and therefore provide more access for hunters? Timber harvest, thinning and controlled burns create a more diverse landscape, a landscape that more closely mimics a natural state where fire brings renewal and diversity of flora, benefiting a multitude of fauna. Controlled burns in the west are also a major tool to limit the spread of the western pine bark beetle. Please explain why hunters should oppose this legislation. The text of the proposed change doesn't make it clear to me.

 

[phall]

There are a few major impacts for hunters and anglers.
Habitat fragmentation
Water quality degredation
increased fire risk, a majority of wildfires are started within 1/4 mile of a road & they are already conducting active forest and fuel management strategies within roadless parcels
The USFS is already in a maintenance backlog on existing roads

Roads impact wildlife negatively:
study
article summarizing study


Trout Unlimited Report on the ecological and recreational benefits of roadless:
TU Report

 

[brancher147]

Another chip away at selling public lands IMO. No way the USFS can manage any changes to roadless areas in their current state of cutbacks.

But if politicians cut or change enough of USFS lands policy that they become even more severely neglected maybe the public will finally support selling those public lands

Coming from Mike Lee…it stinks

 

[patagonialuke]

I've genuinely been trying to get a clear answer on this as well, and while I'm neither an expert nor an attorney, here's my take after ctrl-f-ing my way through the original text and researching from sources on both sides of the argument:

Bottom Line IMO: rescinding the RR wouldn't be good for hunters or wildlife; it would be good for commercial logging.

I think the RR could benefit from some targeted revisions for FS-implemented wildfire management, and/or additional state-specific plans like ID & CO have, but getting rid of it completely (and preventing similar rules from being created in the future) is not a net positive for wildlife or hunters.

Seems to me like Lee is mostly in this because of what it opens for commercial logging and other potential development on public land. If this truly was just about mitigating wildfires on FS land, why not make updates specific to that, rather than simultaneously opening up to commercial use?

Roadless Rule does have exceptions for the FS when it comes to wildfire management. The main downsides I've found are that it doesn't easily allow the FS to build new roads for preemptive fire management (only "imminent"), and only allows for non-commercial logging of "generally small-diameter" trees for fire management.

If someone proposed specific revisions that make it easier for FS managers to do what they deem best for wildfire conditions and wildlife, I'd be much more open. But the argument for scrapping it entirely seems very dubious from a wildfire-management perspective.

 

[phall]

Sen. Heinrich summed it up great on a reel i saw on IG. This bill, s.140, the Wildfire Prevention Act, was going to be a big win, largely bipartisan, supported from both sides of the isle, helping staffing, etc, and now it's become divisive with this inclusion.

 

[Ten Bears]

if this wasn't from Mike Lee I would feel better about it.

but the roadless rule definitely needs some updates to it.

supervised well planned logging, storm clean up, fire clean up, trail maintaining, could help hunters and wildlife.

 

[MTtrout]

How will this impact hunters in a negative way? Doesn't it allow the FS to put in roads to allow more timber harvest, more thinning and controlled burns, and therefore provide more access for hunters? Timber harvest, thinning and controlled burns create a more diverse landscape, a landscape that more closely mimics a natural state where fire brings renewal and diversity of flora, benefiting a multitude of fauna. Controlled burns in the west are also a major tool to limit the spread of the western pine bark beetle. Please explain why hunters should oppose this legislation. The text of the proposed change doesn't make it clear to me.

You don’t even need to read the text to understand why this is bad for hunters and the forest. You think the good timber is in the roadless areas? How many roadless/wilderness areas have you been in and thought, wow now this is some good timber? Look up how many miles of forest service roads we already have and all the backlog in maintenance. Those roads are within some great timber to log but how much logging are we currently doing? What’s the reason the forest service can’t do more logging? Litigation is a big one! If we cannot even maintain what we have now why would building more roads with tax payers dollars help us? The administration has already decimated the FS and looking to do even more damage. They eliminated most of the lower paying staff that we need for such projects. How will we have staff and funding to manage these proposed new roaded areas? Is the government gonna suddenly realize the harm they have done and decide to allocate the funding where it is needed, to better hunters and habitat? To key more in on hunting and habitat, this promotes more fragmentation, increase risk of fire, increasing disturbance on wildlife(where do they go when disturbed?), the spread of noxious weeds, degradation of already weak soils, water quality issues,… easy to go on. The croaked politicians are not doing this to better our hunting nor will the forest benefit. They are pulling wool over your eyes.

I’m all for logging, timber thinning, prescribed burns,… but don’t think the lack of roads is the limiting factor. Hunters should be against this if they look more deeper. Every American that finds comfort in such places should be against this.

 

[Legend]

If Mike Lee is involved it is NOT in the interest of improving public land.

USFS can't manage a campground with the number of staff left. So why not have a road building free for all. Shout out to Senator Daines in MT....my understanding is he voted for this. Just because you are a republican doesn't mean you can't vote to keep Montana’s road-less areas.

 

[MTtrout]

if this wasn't from Mike Lee I would feel better about it.

but the roadless rule definitely needs some updates to it.

supervised well planned logging, storm clean up, fire clean up, trail maintaining, could help hunters and wildlife.

Mike Lee is an enemy number one, for sure, but why would this make you feel better if it was another politician? Are you saying it’s a good plan but with Lee’s name on it makes it’s a bad plan? It’s a bad plan no matter whose name is on it. But Lee makes it sting even more.

I agree with your last statement but the forest management plans already address this (always room for improvements!) but if there’s no funding and staff, how’s the FS supposed to implement such projects?

 

[akhunter3]

Mike Lee?

No thanks.

This guy tries every slick trick in the book and some that aren't written to try and sell public lands