New Roadless Rules?

[SilverMallard]

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

[LadyFisher]

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!

[rnelson]

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).]

[fcch]

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)


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

[cklenske]

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.

[LadyFisher]

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

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

[SilverMallard]

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

[rnelson]

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.