"The Case for Destroying Old Forest Roads"

[LaFever]

How about tearing out dams

 

[displacedtexan]

How about tearing out dams

I'm a fan.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

It's not that it has been done, it's the fact that entities, wildlife organizations, ngo's, etc want to achieve that.

The same folks claiming it's "hyperbole" or "fear mongering" because the agenda hasn't been implemented are the same people that are conversely upset about the "project 2025" and other fringe anti public land plans. Ironic huh...?

Go read up on The Wildlands Project, Global Biodiversity Assessment, etc. Look at the groups funding that "research"......they are real and have a real agenda.

Neither project is going anywhere, so l’m not one of those people in fear. LOL it started in 1971 so any day now right??!

I’ll still wait for a lifetime that any group takes USFS lands under their control and shuts off access. I actually like when the forest is closed to law abiding citizen sheep. Makes the hunting better for me. I wish them all the luck in the world enforcing vast amount of wilderness closers in 2085 or whenever this happens.

I read up on the wildlands project and haven’t seen anything too alarming yet from their mission and accomplishments. If something gains traction in the access and resource extraction they’ll be met by a larger opposition eventually and it will die. Theres no money in it, sure they can get large donations, but there’s no profit. Profit exceeds all.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Neither project is going anywhere, so l’m not one of those people in fear. LOL it started in 1971 so any day now right??!

I’ll still wait for a lifetime that any group takes USFS lands under their control and shuts off access. I actually like when the forest is closed to law abiding citizen sheep. Makes the hunting better for me. I wish them all the luck in the world enforcing vast amount of wilderness closers in 2085 or whenever this happens.

I read up on the wildlands project and haven’t seen anything too alarming yet from their mission and accomplishments. If something gains traction in the access and resource extraction they’ll be met by a larger opposition eventually and it will die. Theres no money in it, sure they can get large donations, but there’s no profit. Profit exceeds all.

Well you didn't read much since one of the main goals is to establish massive swaths of Wildlands off limits to humans. Then have buffer zones surrounding the no-go zones with limited human activity.

I will "wait for a lifetime" that any group takes control of USFS land and makes it private. Not going to happen...just a bha conspiracy theory.

 

[Pacific_Fork]

Well you didn't read much since one of the main goals is to establish massive swaths of Wildlands off limits to humans. Then have buffer zones surrounding the no-go zones with limited human activity.

I will "wait for a lifetime" that any group takes control of USFS land and makes it private. Not going to happen...just a bha conspiracy theory.

I did read that part. They are targeting morons for small donations to pay their blue haired staff. Again, where is an actual example of their success?

Not following your second point. Whats the BHA reference mean?

 

[Wyo_hntr]

I did read that part. They are targeting morons for small donations to pay their blue haired staff. Again, where is an actual example of their success?

Not following your second point. Whats the BHA reference mean?

The point is that if it's possible to just scoff at one possibility, it's possible to scoff at the converse, which happens to be the bha "chicken little" sky is falling bit (selling off of all public lands)

On one hand I'm supposed to believe that human hating eco-terrorists are not trying to keep humans out of Wildlands because it hasn't happened yet (even though it was literally adopted in the Global Biodiversity Assessment). But on the other hand I'm supposed to believe in the imminent sell off of all public lands.

I guess both are improbable since neither have occurred so far.

 

[MuleyFever]

The point is that if it's possible to just scoff at one possibility, it's possible to scoff at the converse, which happens to be the bha "chicken little" sky is falling bit (selling off of all public lands)

On one hand I'm supposed to believe that human hating eco-terrorists are not trying to keep humans out of Wildlands because it hasn't happened yet (even though it was literally adopted in the Global Biodiversity Assessment). But on the other hand I'm supposed to believe in the imminent sell off of all public lands.

I guess both are improbable since neither have occurred so far.

Are you saying that public lands have not been sold off to private entities?

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Are you saying that public lands have not been sold off to private entities?

He didn't say that.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

He didn't say that.

Correct.

 

[Idaboy]

The article is pretty tame and freely admits the issue is complex and many barriers/opposition arises when a road/trial might be proposed (from even the FS itself in some cases) ..it's evident that had we known 100 yrs ago about invasive species and effects of soil erosion on streams, maybe some of these roads might have been built differently, or "smarter" or immediately shut down after the logging done. The project cited in this article sounds like private timber land that was no longer useful for producing anything and quite honestly sounds like a mess, that the FS then purchased. We need logging and mining, but that doesn't mean we can't something to balance the aftermath.

I guess on the flip side, what if we did nothing? We'd be left with cost of maintenance, ecological issues would fester, and we'd have less good habitat and or less game...I day hunt all the time very close to roads, but it's obvious getting away from roads you just see more when in the woods, hunting or scouting..,.I've never been restricted from any public land here in Idaho (except maybe the Wilks brothers gates and the INL nuclear site has GMU restrictions)., and I am not aware of any "large swath of public land" that people are forbidden to enter. This is just common sense, keep the roads that are high travel and these tiny, dead end roads on the fringe at least need a second look about if it's worth keeping it vehicle worthy...... Is this program of decommission perfect? Heck no, but I'm all for addressing the issue.

I'll stick to my boots

 

[tdhanses]

The article is pretty tame and freely admits the issue is complex and many barriers/opposition arises when a road/trial might be proposed (from even the FS itself in some cases) ..it's evident that had we known 100 yrs ago about invasive species and effects of soil erosion on streams, maybe some of these roads might have been built differently, or "smarter" or immediately shut down after the logging done. The project cited in this article sounds like private timber land that was no longer useful for producing anything and quite honestly sounds like a mess, that the FS then purchased. We need logging and mining, but that doesn't mean we can't something to balance the aftermath.

I guess on the flip side, what if we did nothing? We'd be left with cost of maintenance, ecological issues would fester, and we'd have less good habitat and or less game...I day hunt all the time very close to roads, but it's obvious getting away from roads you just see more when in the woods, hunting or scouting..,.I've never been restricted from any public land here in Idaho (except maybe the Wilks brothers gates and the INL nuclear site has GMU restrictions)., and I am not aware of any "large swath of public land" that people are forbidden to enter. This is just common sense, keep the roads that are high travel and these tiny, dead end roads on the fringe at least need a second look about if it's worth keeping it vehicle worthy...... Is this program of decommission perfect? Heck no, but I'm all for addressing the issue.

I'll stick to my boots

If there is a fire and the roads wash out in areas not commonly traveled those roads are done and closed, odds are they will not be fixing them. Happened by my property and I couldn’t be happier, nice big burns area with difficult access to get to now unless you own property on the border of it.

 

[Billinsd]

Tonto has turned into a dump. FS just paved a large section of the Control road. travel trailers are left in the same spot all summer and fall. People think it's their private camp. FS does nothing. Many neighbors filed written compliants, nothing. So much for removing roads. After they logged out part of it , they just left the landings. They turned into parking places and camps, the place is overrun with toyhaulers. In othet words Yes I agree Tonto is trashed.

The Forest Circus is extremely Tonto, what a perfect Spanish name for them. AZ isn’t too nice a place anymore and it’s purple. I remember how wonderful it was in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Billinsd]

During Covid many parts were closed down to walking in. We should all be freaking, the sky is falling

The Forest Circus owns their lands and decides whatever they want to do with their lands.

 

[Billinsd]

Those roads weren't built so people could drive in for a picnic. The last log truck should have been followed out by a D8 Cat. We might have some Deer if they'd have done that.

Have people driving in for a pic-in-ick eaten all the deer?

 

[Billinsd]

Wait a second, so if we don’t have a road we are stuck only exploring urban areas?

Let’s all park at a rideshare on the blue highway and hike in from there.

 

[Jason Snyder]

The Forest Circus owns their lands and decides whatever they want to do with their lands.

Actually, they are subject to this congressional act, as the forest service does not solely decide what to do with their lands.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795279.pdf

There is also this.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf

Not to mention, the recent Chevron case from the USSC means any ambiguity in a Forest Service rule cannot be clarified by the agency itself. Rather, it is to be determined by the court system or legislated by Congress.

 

[Billinsd]

Actually, they are subject to this congressional act, as the forest service does not solely decide what to do with their lands.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795279.pdf

There is also this.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/emc/nfma/includes/NFMA1976.pdf

Not to mention, the recent Chevron case from the USSC means any ambiguity in a Forest Service rule cannot be clarified by the agency itself. Rather, it is to be determined by the court system or legislated by Congress.

I was wrong. Excellent!!! That’s how it should be!! And the Chevron ruling is an Excellent one regarding the Constitution! Thanks for educating me! On a local level in San Diego they open and close gates to roads, and restrict access. They don’t enforce private property owners posting public land. I thought this was the local forest circus, or is this determined by court system or Congress.