Roadless Rule Attack in the Senate

[wowzers]

I'm happy to see that example. Thanks. I'm going to do more digging to see where the subsidy data comes from and if it's accurate or not.

I added a few thoughts after you responded.

 

[Marbles]

There's a terminology distinction here. Fire-adapted forests need fire to burn off the duff and brush on top of the soil that starts choking things out, but not burn so hot or so high that it gets into tree branches. That's why conifers drop their lowest branches as they grow, leaving feet of nothing but hard-to-burn bark. Their seeds even are fire-adapted, with a wax coating that literally needs to be melted off by fire.

The "bare mineral earth" I'm referring to is a wildland firefighting rule - when clearing a fireline, you leave nothing but bare mineral earth that cannot burn or carry a smolder further underneath and into what you're protecting.

These fires that rage through unmanaged forests burn everything right down to bare mineral earth - the reason this is bad is because it destroys the topsoil. Especially the organic matter that fertilizes everything, and even more importantly, the fungal/mycological ecosystem that healthy soils require.

It essentially sterilizes everything, instead of refreshing it like normal fires would.

What does come back, at first, is deer food...and then it chokes off the landscape and makes it far harder for a healthy forest to return. The mycological ecosystems can take decades to recover - and that matters immensely for tree health.

It may vary by area. But the Swan Lake fire on the KP in 2019 was a "good" fire because it burned down to bare mineral earth in a large area (or so I have been told), which was needed from a moose perspective (you can find documents discussing the need for this that were published in 2010, so not a post hoc rationalization).

Forest growth cycles. Clear cut logging results in uninhabitable county at about the 40 year mark, worse than a hot burn does to my understanding. This logging and the lack of anyone cleaning up the land once the commercial value is extracted is one reason why POWs deer numbers have fallen off. That and can be logged, but it is not economically viable.

Logging old growth produces trees and forest that are not fire resistant in other areas. Where 600 year old Sitka spruce would be unharmed, younger trees and the small stuff that gets enough light to grow below them provide ladder fuels.

Looking at some research post Swan Lake, it looks like it is debatable if high burn severity is actually better, but an argument can be made that it is (at least in boreal forest environments) due to having frontier plant species reestablish at the start of the cycle, rather than regrowth from roots of the previous trees.

 

[wowzers]

I think it's worth bringing up again that there are 9000 miles of OHV trails within the Roadless Areas.

10 Things You Can Do In Roadless Areas - Trout Unlimited

Here are some things you might not know are possible in Roadless Areas...

www.tu.org

7. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding: Roadless areas provide a remote recreation experience for OHV users. 33 percent of mapped motorized trails on National Forest land across 12 western states are located within roadless areas, totaling over 9,000 miles of trails open to OHVs. That’s like riding from New York to LA three times

 

[Mescalito86]

As a former wildland fire fighter of nine seasons with experience on hand crews, hotshot crews and helitack, I can tell you that your statement is far from the truth. 85% of fires in 2025 were human caused fire and you go and open up another 5.5 million acres to motorized vehicles, this is only going to add to the problem. Everything thing from unattended camp fires, no spark arresters, dragging chains down the road, you name it and if it creates a spark, it can cause a fire. And this notion of logging for fire breaks is complete BS. This is nothing more than Mike Lee’s selling point as another way to sell off and privatize public lands. Plus a scorched earth moon landscape left behind by an extremely hot fire doesn’t promote a new healthy forest the next year. It takes decades for the soil to recover if it hasn’t been washed away by flooding and slides the next spring. Sure fire is good for the forest’s ecology, but that is why wilderness fires are typically not suppressed unless they begin to threaten life and property. However human caused fires are nothing more than a waste of tax payer money, lives lost when a fatality occurs on the fire line, habitat reduction, and anything but natural. This is why the Roadless Rule is important.

 

[wowzers]

As a former wildland fire fighter of nine seasons with experience on hand crews, hotshot crews and helitack, I can tell you that your statement is far from the truth. 85% of fires in 2025 were human caused fire and you go and open up another 5.5 million acres to motorized vehicles, this is only going to add to the problem. Everything thing from unattended camp fires, no spark arresters, dragging chains down the road, you name it and if it creates a spark, it can cause a fire. And this notion of logging for fire breaks is complete BS. This is nothing more than Mike Lee’s selling point as another way to sell off and privatize public lands. Plus a scorched earth moon landscape left behind by an extremely hot fire doesn’t promote a new healthy forest the next year. It takes decades for the soil to recover if it hasn’t been washed away by flooding and slides the next spring. Sure fire is good for the forest’s ecology, but that is why wilderness fires are typically not suppressed unless they begin to threaten life and property. However human caused fires are nothing more than a waste of tax payer money, lives lost when a fatality occurs on the fire line, habitat reduction, and anything but natural. This is why the Roadless Rule is important.

The Roadless Rule doesn’t prevent any of those causes. You can still have camp fires, and as I pointed out OHV’s. They aren’t Wilderness areas. Honestly your post comes across as the Roadless Rule is important because you think it keeps people out.

 

[Mescalito86]

The Roadless Rule doesn’t prevent any of those causes. You can still have camp fires, and as I pointed out OHV’s. They aren’t Wilderness areas. Honestly your post comes across as the Roadless Rule is important because you think it keeps people out.

I guess it does keep some out and allows others in. I get the Roadless Rule doesn’t prevent human caused fires, but by some logical thinking it absolutely does. More motorized vehicles means more potential for humans and equipment to start a fire.

 

[WRO]

The Roadless Rule doesn’t prevent any of those causes. You can still have camp fires, and as I pointed out OHV’s. They aren’t Wilderness areas. Honestly your post comes across as the Roadless Rule is important because you think it keeps people out.

It definitely cuts down the morons and idiots that start fires.

I’d venture to say that the vast majority of human caused fires are within 500 yards of a road

 

[Sccritterkiller]

This is super common in our untouched areas. What thrives in this besides worms.View attachment 1079031

Some of the east coast NF are the exact opposite 100 yr old hardwoods with nothing growing under them. You shouldn't be able see 150-200 yds in haddwoods.
I can show you 60k acres of NF in WV where you can't hunt WT doe due to population decline. Gaint canopies with no understory is not good habit for much of anything.

 

[CJ19]

It definitely cuts down the morons and idiots that start fires.

I’d venture to say that the vast majority of human caused fires are within 500 yards of a road

if thats what the purpose of the roadless rule is then that is what the public needs to be informed of. "We want to keep people from accessing these areas to prevent fires." Simple. Don't mislead the public by telling them something else.

 

[yfarm]

Saw the same situation evolve over 30 years in a mature hardwood forest in the midwest, initally lush undergrowth under the canopy that eventually became a dead zone with towering trees and no undergrowth. No sunlight reaching the floor except in the late fall, winter and early spring. The area was logged off in the 30s and 40s, as the forest regrew wildlife returned and prospered, then donated to a park district which prohibited any cutting of any kind and now has become a desert under the canopy.

 

[MTtrout]

Here's a recent sale. Notice the road maintenance amount comes out to almost $100k and the Specified Roads package is $218k.

I support logging and appreciate for provided an example of sale.

After you complete the project and signed off by the funding party. Who gets stuck with the cost of maintenance when the road grade deteriorates or washes out water diversion systems? Do you come back and fix it or is not your problem anymore? How long are you obligated? A curious question. Seems like when you buy a house and now you have repairs, situation.

Again, I support more logging. I’ve worked on many WMAs that we have put timber up for bid. I know that your statement “ you’re aren’t paying for any of this” is BS in the end.

 

[MTtrout]

if thats what the purpose of the roadless rule is then that is what the public needs to be informed of. "We want to keep people from accessing these areas to prevent fires." Simple. Don't mislead the public by telling them something else.

Being roadless, doesn’t mean no one should access what Americans own to prevent forests fires. Hike, ride a horse, got on a bike, do what fits you. It means no more roads “we” can’t maintain. Now that seems simple.

How do you personally benefit from more roads, financially? If you do, I’d understand that. If you don’t then why are people so adamant that we need more roads in the roadless areas? I’m waiting for reasons why this is good, haven’t seen any yet. We can’t fund the projects that needs to be done on current road areas in FS/BLM lands. Still people believe, cutting more roads will make the fairy appear.

 

[Blowdowner]

This is an argument that our national public lands should be the sole preserve of the young, fit, and healthy. It is an anti-access argument.

It gets even more grotesque when faced with the reality that 89% of my state is government-controlled land, along with several other of our Western states at that level.

I hear you completely but show me how your taxes went down after they harvest your favorite forest.

 

[PMcGee]

Being roadless, doesn’t mean no one should access what Americans own to prevent forests fires. Hike, ride a horse, got on a bike, do what fits you. It means no more roads “we” can’t maintain. Now that seems simple.

How do you personally benefit from more roads, financially? If you do, I’d understand that. If you don’t then why are people so adamant that we need more roads in the roadless areas? I’m waiting for reasons why this is good, haven’t seen any yet. We can’t fund the projects that needs to be done on current road areas in FS/BLM lands. Still people believe, cutting more roads will make the fairy appear.

Who says roads built for logging need to be maintained afterwards? Put a gate on them when they’re done and leave them be.

 

[wowzers]

I support logging and appreciate for provided an example of sale.

After you complete the project and signed off by the funding party. Who gets stuck with the cost of maintenance when the road grade deteriorates or washes out water diversion systems? Do you come back and fix it or is not your problem anymore? How long are you obligated? A curious question. Seems like when you buy a house and now you have repairs, situation.

Again, I support more logging. I’ve worked on many WMAs that we have put timber up for bid. I know that your statement “ you’re aren’t paying for any of this” is BS in the end.

The C provisions outline that. And this is the issue I have when folks throw out the "they don't have any money to maintain the roads we have", they are collecting for it.

C5.31# - Road Maintenance Requirements. Purchaser shall maintain roads in accordance with the Contract Road Maintenance Requirements Summary found in the Contract Road Package.

C5.32# - Road Maintenance Deposit Schedule. The Required Deposits for Forest Service work in lieu of Purchaser performance are $0.55 per TON for recurrent maintenance and $0.99 per TON for deferred maintenance.

Please explain to me how you are paying my deposits.