New Roadless Rules?

The Bush Administration just overturned the Roadless Wilderness rules put in place in the last 8 days of the Clinton Administration which served to preserve 58.8 million acres of pristine wilderness in the US. Under the Bush plan, the power to manage these lands will be vested in the states, as governors will present plans to the US Forest Service regarding these roadless wilderness areas regarding their use.

I'm just wondering what everyone thinks of this move?

------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

Unfortunately, it comes too late for the Black Hills. You may remember Al Campbell's articles and comments here on the BB about the causes of the horrible fires there, and why the firefighters were unable to stop them.

We also saw for ourselves what proper forestry management can do - and it was because of that practice that the Metolious River was spared in the fires there (I think a year ago?)

------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

Without roads there is no chance that I can see or fish in much of that 58.8 million acres of pristine wilderness.

If the success or failure of these areas depends, as Ladyfisher says "on proper forrestry management" then we as fishers and outdoors people must see to it that proper management practices are employed.

Any roads or other constructions in the area should be very strictly engineered so that the environment is not affected to any large extent. I don't see where having the states doing the planning would cause any more problems than the Park Service working alone! And maybe the infusion of new ideas from the states would be a good thing.

IMHO the key to success is go slowly!

From many years of experience I can confidently say that vesting states with any power to oversee federally owned public lands is a mistake. In my home state of North Dakota, the state government does not view multiple use as anything other than grazing and mineral development. In a heartbeat the state would allow all kinds of private use of public lands under the guise of economic development.

When it comes to conservation of public lands I am convinced that the federal government can do a much better job. And the primary reason is that the federal government must be responsive to all citizens, not just the citizens of one state. Using North Dakota as an example, whenever there are issues on use of the National Grasslands the first thing you hear from the state is, "we don't care what someone from 'out east' thinks, this is North Dakota." Because the grasslands are under federal ownership the USFS must take into account input from all citizens.

Do the feds always to the absolute best job of managing lands. No, but IMO it is preferable to having states involved.

Revocation of the roadless rules was done to a great extent to open areas to commercial use. It has little to do with proper forest management or protecting people from wildland fires.

Forest Fires are natures way of renewing the land. The ashes from fires are the nutrients returning to the soil from which they came. Burnt areas, become grass areas for deer and elk to feed (very little food under the forset canopy). New trees start to grow (some trees require a fire for the seeds to be deposited on the ground).

Minnesota has large expanses of Native Prairie Land, protected to allow nature stay unchanged so native wildlife can survive. Every couple of years this Native Prairie Land is burnt, to renew the soil.

Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), suffered severe damage from a Straight-Line Storm, that destroyed over 33% of the BWCAW. Logging is not permitted inside the BWCAW, so the fallen timbers are over a period of year, to be burned.

Lake Itasca State Park, headwaters of the Mississippi River, has Virgin White and Red Pines, that have never felt the ax. This area will be controlled burnt, because no new pine seedlings have grown in over 100 years. The forest floor has to be cleared of undergrowth to allow new trees to grow.

Bottom line, fire is not an enemy of man, but a tool to be used to renew and preserve the forest as they were intended to be. Every changing, and going through cycles of growth - fire - renewal.

As for 4 wheeled vehicles, in the right hands they also are a tool for the good of all. But like any tool, in the wrong hands it can cause death and destruction.


[This message has been edited by Steven H. McGarthwaite (edited 05 June 2005).]

Steven,

Very good points. I think combustibles management is still a "perception" over "science" problem.

Ever since the continent was colonized, wild fire was the ENEMY. There is always the problem of access and active management vs the higher risk of public access (be it motorized or not).

The fires we have this week in Northern Canada were the result of lightning strikes. The fire recurence risk in the zone is less than 150 years, so we're on par.

In the south of the province, the natural recurence is over 1000 years, but we have 100x more fires (more fishermen too).

I managed for quite a while the southern interiour in BC and we actively managed fuel loads. It can be done, just need a shift in public perception and responsability of users.

Tools are important things and are useful in the right hands (and dangerous in others). Heck, the tools of my trade used to be measured in .01 inches (from 0.308 to 0.457) http://www.flyanglersonline.com/bb/wink.gif


------------------
Christopher Chin
Jonquiere Quebec
[url=http://pages.videotron.com/fcch/:2fe2e]http://pages.videotron.com/fcch/[/url:2fe2e]

It's my understanding that the repeal of the roadless rules was not to gain more access to the public lands by the people, but to gain more access to the trees and mineral deposits that exist on public lands. It has nothing to do with protecting lands from forest and grassland fires. It has nothing to do with the "best" use of the land by the most people. It has to do with the most profitable use of the land by the fewest.
CJ

------------------
The only limitations we have are the ones we put on ourselves.

CJ? May I ask where you got that 'understanding' from?

------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

I can see both sides of this debate and believe both have merit. I suspect some states will manage these lands very effectively and there will be net improvement, while a few will basically pillage and plunder. Shame on those states if they do. The people of those states...especially the sportsmen/women of those states...should scream bloody murder and demand political heads on pikes if proper scientific management principles are ignored.

But, for me, the bottom line is that I believe in greater control at the local/regional level...regarding all gov't. Therefore, I support this change and hope for the best. "We get the government we deserve."

------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

With all due respect SilverMallard, hoping for the best is not the way to manage public lands. States are not equipped in a great many cases to manage huge tracts of public lands for a number of reasons. Lack of funds, lack of staff, and incredible political pressures to manage for "local" benefits that may not be in the best interests of all citizens.

In my experience states do not view management of public lands in the same broad manner as federal agencies. I can cite specific examples where federal lands are managed by a state and that management has not been for multiple uses. The bottom line has been to manage for the benefit of a few members of the public while ignoring the rest.

I favored the roadless rules for several reasons. Mainly because they prevented the wholesale abuse of public lands by restricting access.

Management and use of public lands is a very complex issue. Like it or not, we are in many places seriously damaging systems by over use and abuse. Nobody likes to discuss the root issues because they often involve having to manage people.

My preference would have been to keep the roadless rules in place. I do not agree that states should be permitted to manage federally owned lands. These lands belong to all citizens not just those in a particular state.

Mr. Nelson? So explain why/how/what you would have done differently about S. Dakota and the fires? Nothing? Or the California fires? Or Arizona?

------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "What would I have done about the fires". Do you mean how would I manage the forest systems? Would I have let the fires burn?

It seems the topic has strayed from the original post. The original post stated Bush has overturned the roadless rules on wilderness areas and plans to have the governors submit management plans to the federal agencies charged with management.

I am opposed to states being allowed to manage public lands. I never said I was opposed to management. However, the majority of these lands are, as stated in the original post, wilderness areas. These areas were designated as wilderness by Congress under the Wilderness Act with specific legal mandates for management.

I believe I have stated my issue clearly. I am opposed to states managing federal lands. I have seen first hand how this does not work for a number of reasons. I can elaborate if you all don't mind a long reply.

Somehow this topic strayed onto fires and fuel management. In the majority of wilderness areas fires should be permitted to burn unless they threaten property and then they should be controlled. The mentality for too long has been, as pointed out by Steven, that fires, all fires were bad. The Forest Service and BLM fostered this view (remember Smokey Bear) and for decades fires were supressed at almost any cost.

I am not oppposed to fuels management, prescribed burns or logging if done correctly. I am opposed to the wholesale opening of designated wilderness areas to commercialization under the guise of preventing fires. That is what revocation of the roadless areas seems to be about, not protecting property. Why overturn the roadless rules on 58 million acres? Not all those areas pose a threat.

The roadless rules is what allowed S. Dakota to burn. The attempts to do any management whatsoever was held up in court forever...
The State had no way to manage those areas even though they had concrete plans to do so.
In that one case, State management would have saved the areas, plus the cost of fighting the fires and homes lost. Even after the fires when the State wanted to go in and remove the mess left, that too was blocked, and the next fire burned out of control as well.

We have obviously made mistakes by having the Fed control the regions, we well could do better with State control. Will there be mistakes? Probably. But the status quo wasn't working either.

I refuse to bury my head in the ashes and let the Fed, and those who believe these areas must be 'untouched' to decimate yet more of our forests. I would just once like to see those who tied up the S. Dakota forest management take responsibility for the disaster they caused.

------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

Whether we trust the feds or the states to do what's right, we're "hoping for the best" either way. You may place your trust in the feds more than the states. I tend to place my trust in lower levels of gov't. Furthermore, these lands will still be managed by USFS (and probably BLM). The state governors are simply submitting management PLANS to USFS, and those plans will be reviewed and must still meet all federal mandates and regulations EXCEPT for the Roadless Rule that Clinton imposed by Executive Order.

------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

Who said anything about untouched! Read my previous post again and if you get past your apparent distaste for the federal government you will find I support appropriate management.

The fact that Bush overturned the roadless rules is pitched as the simple solution to a complex problem. I have seen no data to indicate that possibility exists. It will open up wilderness areas to activities that are not part of designated wilderness, the reason Clinton put them in place.

We let people build in areas we know are going to get hit, be it flood, fire, mudslide, hurricane, etc. Then, when the predictable happens the first thing we do is let them go right back again. The second thing we do is try to somehow "manage" natural resources to make it safer to be there.

So far nobody on this post, including me, has proposed a viable solution or even identifed the problem for that matter. Several of you have stated your preference for local or state control vs. federal control. I disagree.

And I do not agree with the changes to the roadless designations for wilderness areas as has occurred.

Untouched? That is what the 'Clinton' order was. You are supporting that. It would appear that is your 'solution' since that is what you support.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
It will open up wilderness areas to activities that are not part of designated wilderness, the reason Clinton put them in place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad it's been removed.



------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

I support wilderness as envisioned by Congress when they passed the Wilderness Act. Wilderness areas that are full of roads, hammered by ORVs, etc. are not wilderness.

And for the most part I supported Clinton's rules because they plugged some loopholes. And they indeed were a very strong reaction to years of problems.

But I don't believe for one minute that Bush has any interest in this other than to open large areas to commercial logging. All under the guise of fire management.

And by the way, states already have the option of providing input to the FS and BLM. Every citizen of the country has the same opportunity.

The problem is multi-dimensional and can't be solved by your simple solution of let the states manage it.

Apparently we are going to strongly disagree on this issue.

Provide input? Right. And since the forests under the Clinton plan were under Fed rule, it just took one person to file suit in Federal Court to stop anything....note, not State court, FEDERAL. Input all you pleased, one environmentalist could shut it off - and did. Disagree? That is an understatment,
we have been so veerrry politically correct in this country no one is willing to stand up and say the precious policy was wrong. I don't know (and even though you can buy anyone's belief on this you want) you don't know if this will be better or not. It sure will be an improvement - the last one didn't work.

------------------
LadyFisher, Publisher of
FAOL

Let me make sure I understand something here. Are you advocating turning over federal lands to states? If so, I am very much opposed to that idea.

Anybody with a lawyer can file suit in federal court. Anybody with a lawyer can file suit in state court as well. Do you really think that those people bent on lawsuits will stop because states manage federal lands. They will stop about the same time the other side stops trying to gut the existing environmental laws for private gain.

Turning over management to states won't prevent lawsuits as lands will still be in federal ownership. All federal regulations will still apply and just because a state may manage a tract of land doesn't mean they can just do whatever they want. Federal agencies are required to provide oversight to ensure compliance with federal regulations. Failure to do so will bring lawsuits from one side or the other.

Unfortunatly, both ends of the spectrum have very adeptly twisted the system to their own agendas. High priced lawyers for both sides know very well how to manipulate the system, especially under the NEPA, to force or prevent actions. I don't like it either.

While there is much room for improvement in managing federal lands I don't agree that states can do it better.

You want better management of federal lands? I could give you my ideas. But as you seem to be so locked into the idea that states should do it I am not sure it would be worthwhile.

We strongly disagree on several aspects of the issue. You have your opinion and I have mine. I think the roadless rules should have been left in place. I also think there would have been room for improvement and/or changes. You think otherwise.

When I read your post I was shocked. What I wrote was not meant to be offensive in any way. But when I read what I had written again I could see where it might be taken that way.

What I was trying to say was this. Although I have ideas for solutions it would probably not be beneficial for either of us for me to spend time writing them down. We have very different opinions on the subject and providing that information is not likely to change your mind just as you aren't going to change mine.

I have enjoyed this web site and have always thought it one of the best. It is obvious that I have offended you. I will leave with deep regrets for anything I said that was offensive as I did not intend to offend anyone. Please accept my sincere apology.

My forest, and specifically my district, has no plans to build any new roads into any of the roadless areas, and we have several. The reason they are roadless is that it was not cost-effective to build roads into them in the heyday of logging, and it certainly wouldn't fly now. Proposing road-building into one of those areas would be like waving a red flag in the face of the environmental groups. We spend a lot of money reducing the number of roads on our district, because we have (gasp) more than we want!

Not to say it won't happen in the future. Remember, it is not the local land managers, or the states, that dictate the amount of timber coming off the forests. Congress tells the FS how much to produce, and if Congress tells us to do it, then we have to do it. If you don't like that, VOTE!