USDA rescinds roadless rule

[Trogon]

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/23/secretary-rollins-rescinds-roadless-rule-eliminating-impediment-responsible-forest-management

Statement by the USDA toes the party line. What's everyone's thoughts on this?

My opinion is that if taken at face value there is merit for economic benefit, forestry management, and fire risk control. I truly believe the government lacks the ability and the will to make smart science based management decisions. Its clear to me that the people that push for this have motives beyond the health of our national forest. This is another cut in the thousand cuts effort to divest public land. Even if divesture is not outright sale, it can come in the form of leases that make big money for big corps at the expense of those of us who value roadless areas. I'm surprised conservations groups and hunters are not up in arms about this like the public land sale.

 

[Poser]

I've seen this. I'm not sure there is much of anything anyone can do to actually fight it since it was an E.O. The language in it suggests that the decisions going forward will come down to the area manager. I also full expect to see this day 1 rescinded in 3.5 years.

 

[Poser]

Colorado negotiated a separate “roadless rule” agreement with the U.S. Forest Service after extensive statewide stakeholder meetings in the early 2000s, and the petition to have unique state rules was approved by federal authorities in 2012.

“At the Western Governors’ Association this week Gov. Polis confirmed with Secretary Rollins directly that the USDA Secretary’s announcement will not impact the Colorado Roadless Rule, and that the Colorado Roadless Rule will remain intact,” Polis spokesperson Shelby Wieman said.

A USDA spokesperson in Washington, D.C., confirmed that assessment in an email early Thursday.

 

[Skerhunter]

I saw this being pushed as a win for allowing access and improved maintenance focused on use for fire personnel. I definitely don’t like the idea of more roads, but also understand the challenges those guys face. Maybe we will get lucky and they will be locked up/restricted access.

 

[Poser]

I saw this being pushed as a win for allowing access and improved maintenance focused on use for fire personnel. I definitely don’t like the idea of more roads, but also understand the challenges those guys face. Maybe we will get lucky and they will be locked up/restricted access.

I highly doubt that any forrest service district anywhere has any money at all to budget towards building new fire roads. My district had to do a public fundraiser just to have enough money to open the public restrooms this season. Build roads with what money?

 

[Trogon]

Exactly, and that's a perfect excuse to put that into private hands: government doesn't need to foot the bill for logging roads, private leases can do that and then the roads are available for fire. I would love to see that done strategically, with a long term vision for overall wellbeing of all resources. Just dont see that happening.

 

[Skerhunter]

I highly doubt that any forrest service district anywhere has any money at all to budget towards building new fire roads. My district had to do a public fundraiser just to have enough money to open the public restrooms this season. Build roads with what money?

Right - I would imagine it needs to be funded now before it’s possible to perform the previously restricted repairs/construction. I doubt we see any changes this season (gov isn’t that efficient anyways).

 

[elkhunter505]

Most of the talk I’ve seen suggests that the areas that the roadless rule covered are not necessarily profitable for timber harvest and they’re saying it’s more for firefighting access. Fires are 3 to 4 times as likely to be ignited within I think 50 meters of a road, so build more roads and essentially it’s likely to start more fires. Just flat out doesn’t make sense to me when the profitability of the parcels suggested is minimal.

 

[elkhunter505]

Sometimes it feels like these people see a wildfire occur and don’t see anything other than $ going down the drain rather than wildlife habitat being created.

 

[wowzers]

Many of the areas selected when the rule was implemented already had roads in them.