Roadless Rule Attack in the Senate

[CJ19]

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.

The point of my statement was that I can not find restricting public access as a fire mitigation measure as a rational for the Roadless Rule federal register entry. If that is what the rational is, it should have been presented as such in the lengthy documentation on the federal register. This Roadless Rule recension is an issue I choose to simply remain neutral on. There are clearly some areas that need management via things like timbering. I don't know that I am a fan of revocation of the Roadless Rule in the manner that it has occurred here, which is at the last minute out of committee. Personally, I like roadless areas, but I am not as knowledgeable on the RR as I need to be in order to take a firm side at this time.

As far as not seeing any benefit...Really? We are told public land sales are financially foolish because the incredible mineral, OG, grazing, timber value to the public. Now when someone is like "hey lets get those resources you were talking about", its ... we can not mine, log, or access those other resources because there is just not a financial benefit to the public. Which is it? Again, I like roadless areas and don't want cars, atvs, mines, and OG wells everywhere, but it can be acknowledged there are public benefits to roads and still make a robust defense of the roadless rule.