Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cody Tucker's avatar

As a heavy equipment operator, the chance to reopen these closed off and forgotten access roads in the forest excites me. As an outdoorsman and a conservationist, I hope access will be restricted to the public by foot traffic and bikes only, and emergency services use as well. As a realist, unfortunately I see politicians using this as a potential land grab once the forests do all the work. I hope I’m wrong on that account.

Expand full comment
Charles Mark's avatar

The rescission of the roadless rule is a political stunt that is not going to address the "wicked" problem we have in wildland fire management. There is a reason that these areas are roadless, the terrain is harsh, steep, and complex and the timber growing on it would not make enough money to transport it off the mountain! These roadless areas provide a buffer and opportunity to manage fires for other than full suppression and the lack of values at risk certainly lends itself to such fire management strategies. If anybody thinks that we're going to start putting in hard money transportation systems in these areas to harvest timber to address hazardous fuels, you're kidding yourself and do not understand the scale and complexity of the fire management conundrum. The Forest Service will never have the budget to do take on such a herculean task for such little reward. Also, the states of Idaho and Colorado have their own state roadless rules, which would not be affected by the FS Roadless Rule rescission. The use of timber harvest to break-up the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels and reduce hazardous fuels loadings has merit in and around the wildland/urban interface. Timber harvest out in vast roadless area has minimal value or efficacy in contributing to strategic fuels management. Beneficial fire, whether we light it or mother nature lights it, is what is needed in roadless areas.

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts