How to submit a public comment to USDA’s proposal to rescind roadless rule

But they’re not listening. Those who do have no power. Words are not enough. If they cared about us, Bobby Kennedy would not be in charge of healthcare. We are just in their way

I made a comment.   I’d suggest we all do.  Thanks Ryan for the short write up and the links to comment.

When RFK Jr and others were being put forth to lead major national government agencies, I took to the key board and wrote letters.   Good old fashioned letters, stamped and mailed to my two Senators.  Our House Representative was changing and I couldn’t find how to mail them a letter.   I received ONE reply on ONE of the letters.  6 mailed, 1 reply.

But we must try.

RFK Jr has close to zero health, medical, science background.  And, he’s never managed a large organization.   Those were the points I made about him.

I am strongly against the proposed changes. However, this topic is so political-adjacent as to be basically indistiguishable from politics, imo. One can attempt to distinguish between politics and policy, but it’s not really plausible in these cases, and the direction of the conversation is foreseeable. and honestly, this is an explicit call for political activism, not a policy discussion. Id hate to see the membership further fractured.

PS sorry about the poor typing, I broke my wrist in a fall trying to traverse some steep slippery deadfall.

When discussing policy, we can focus on the outcomes / results / impacts of those policies, especially as it relates to outdoor recreation (in this context, and in this community).

In the context of the current issue, the policy that’s probably most in question is the rush to dismantle what has been a pretty stabilizing policy for public lands management and resource conservation over the past 25 years.

Denying there is a timber supply crunch and assuming nefariousness on behalf of USDA is tempting, but there are some headwinds here that we’re battling in an effort to preserve the Roadless Rule on the grounds that “we have plenty of timber” (which is probably true in terms of the raw supply stock of harvestable timber):

• Tariffs on Canadian imports are escalating costs.
• Domestic capacity and mill operations have difficulty reacting quickly to changes in harvest rates.
• Legal, environmental, and labor obstacles all limit the rapid expansion of supply from federal lands.

Will dismantling the Roadless Rule increase the raw stock of harvestable timber in the US? Probably, albeit somewhat minor (on the order of < 5M acres).

Will this release of timber stock meet short-term demands? No – the supply chain is too complex and slow.

And this zeros in on why the current docket issued by USDA is problematic – it reflects a rushed process. That undermines public trust in an administration that has already eroded trust with consistent patterns of lack of transparency and repeated dissonance between proposed policy positions (“we propose reducing the size of government”) and how those policies are actually implemented (“let’s try making huge changes without careful review or assessment of potentially damaging consequences”).

Limiting government is nothing but a ruse to take away our rights and protections. If lumber is becoming a dwindling resource, perhaps we need to look at the tracks of McMansions being built with 20 bedrooms and 30 baths. Only a slight exaggeration. It’s not the regulations that hinder us, rather it’s lack of regulations. We need government. Not one of us is strong enough on our own to fight the power of a few selfish individuals.

I believe that people on the other side of this will absolutely see some of your comments as political, Ryan (eg generalizations about the administration, etc). but its your site and your choice how to use it. fwiw, I totally agree with your perspective .

IIRC, the western states pushed back, some more than others, on the proposal to sell off tracts of public lands.   Hopefully the states will push back again.  Our current US Congress seems unwilling to push back very much.

Well, I’ve made my comment. Anyone who loves our forests and mountains should do the same. Thanks for bringing this up, Ryan.

I’m conflicted on this one. As a BPL member and backpacker I also do a lot of dirt biking. I can visit a lot of country that I wouldn’t otherwise ever get to due to time/resource constraints.  I can see points from both sides and some of those viewpoints seem diametrically opposed. How to find balance?

Can anyone comment on some of the points from the Blue Ribbon Coalition? Are any valid?  What do you think don’t hold up?

https://blueribboncoalition.org/the-roadless-rule-rescission/

I’ve had a Husky or two . I didn’t ride everywhere. Didn’t feel that I had the right.  There are places where it’s allowed. We all have our constraints. We need to deal with them without destroying nature. We are the guests.

They are not talking motorbike or even off road bicycle trails/roads.  They are talking logging roads.  They were talking roads so builders could develop the land for housing.

When I take my young children we mostly ride what once, at one time, were logging roads. Once their skill level improves we then switch to single track. I have 8 kids that ride with ages 6-18.

Politics related to backpacking are ok. Meanness is not. I think we’re all smart enough to manage discussion without being jerks, no?

Everyone take one look at Europe and see if that’s what you want the western U.S. to look like – development everywhere. That is the ultimate goal of developers and that’s what rescinding the roadless rule and other regulations will eventually do. We’ll have tiny patches of trees left and everything firmly controlled. Sure, it might start just with forest roads, with the excuse of needing lumber, but that’s not the end goal. Alaska once had a governor who wanted a “spaghetti” of roads throughout the state; thankfully he didn’t succeed (mostly because the state built terrible roads) and we’re still hanging onto some priceless nature but only with sustained conservation battles. Here in Alaska more roads will mean more open pit mines.

Also remember that Linnwood, Washington was once a forest and now it’s Walmarts and cheap mattress outlets everywhere. My god it’s ugly and soul-breaking, endless outlets of cheap badly made goods no one needs, poverty and homelessness. Many people do want development and people everywhere, and I would assume that regardless of their beliefs on other political issues, backpackers don’t want that. If you do think that’s what you want, where will you go backpacking? People think the west is huge but it can be so easily and quickly overdeveloped and that will last forever. The beauty and peace of nature that we have now – so much less than was had 100 years ago already – could disappear. Give em an inch and they’ll take it all.