Repealing The Roadless Rule Doesn't Mean More Off-Road Trails

Nor does it mean better fire mitigation. It just allows for more mining, extraction, and development.

Photo by: Jonathon Klein

By: Jonathon Klein

Aug 20, at 9:09am ET

Add RideApart as a preferred source in Google

Comment

Earlier this week, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced that she had filed the paperwork to move to repeal the highly popular 'Roadless Rule' despite fierce public opposition. The reason? Because the U.S. Forest Service has its hands tied in properly managing our nation's public lands for "overgrown stands, insect outbreaks and disease," and "turning them into tinderboxes," which they allege is the reason behind our worsening wildfire seasons.

As you may already have guessed, none of these are the real reasons.

The real reason is that the 'Roadless Rule's' language makes it impossible for the administration to sell off large tracts of our public lands to extractive industries such as mining, oil and gas, and timber, as well as for housing development. And all of those industries have heavily lobbied and/or donated to the current administration's campaign efforts—see the mining company that contributed to the Trump campaign, bought a bunch of its own shares, and then saw Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante's protections gone so they could once again apply a mining claim for uranium in those areas.

But if you've been paying attention to RideApart's public land coverage, you'll know that a common refrain amongst our community is one that says this is actually a good thing. That the rescission will open up access to all, and that this means more off-road trails to said community. And, again, if you've been reading our coverage, you'll know this is baloney.

We will, however, have a chance to comment on the rescission, and we must if we're to preserve our nation's public land and everyone's access to them.

Firstly, I feel as I must state this every time I talk about the Roadless Rule, the "Roadless" aspect is a misnomer. There are countless roads that crisscross roadless areas, giving folks access to these places. Yes, you will have to eventually get out of your side-by-side or off your motorcycle or ATV, but true roadless areas aren't what they appear. And the "advocacy" groups hailing these decisions as great for our community know this, but are still pretending they don't, as they're deeply connected to those pushing these sell-off agendas.

Our buddies at GearJunkie lay this out perfectly: "The 2001 Roadless Rule generally prohibits new road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest within designated inventoried roadless areas, with several exceptions. It doesn’t designate those lands as wilderness or close them to public use." Emphasis mine, as roads are already there. The outlet adds, "Hunting, fishing, camping, grazing, habitat work, hazardous fuels reduction, and other activities can occur within roadless areas. Existing exceptions can also allow some timber harvest, energy infrastructure, mineral activity, and road construction."

Second, the idea that this is about wildfire suppression or management is absolute horseshit. Wildfires are predominantly caused by human ignition, and only a quarter mile from the road or a trail. That's just a fact, and backed up by Secretary Rollins' own Forest Service. Utah's current atrocious fire season, which has already cost the taxpayers $217 million, has almost exclusively been caused by humans. Why do I bring this up? Because Utah's Governor Spencer Cox, heralds Secretary Rollins' action in the USDA's press release as great for Americans and Utahns alike. But adding roads to these mostly roadless places will only cause more fires, costing his constituents and the American people more money when it comes to battling these blazes.

Moreover, the idea that we can somehow manage these areas better with a repeal when the USDA and Department of the Interior has gutted the agencies' funding and personnel is absolutely laughable. Both agencies fired thousands. Both agencies have seen their funding cut by leaps and bounds. Both agencies have moved to reduce management efforts. So saying this repeal will let them manage forests better is ridiculous.

But more so, these pristine places are where our clean water comes from. Where forests soak up carbon dioxide. And where our nation's most majestic and awesome flora and fauna reside. At least, what's left, as humanity's encroachment seems never-ending.

"This isn't a bureaucratic footnote — it's the wholesale elimination of protections for the backcountry habitat hunters, anglers, wildlife, and rural communities depend on," said Ryan Callaghan, President and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. He added, "The Roadless Rule works. It provides quality habitat for big game, keeps trout streams cold and clean, and keeps taxpayers from footing the bill for thousands of miles of new roads that the Forest Service can't afford to maintain."

BHA press release goes on to say, "The USFS currently manages more than 370,000 miles of roads — over eight times the length of the entire U.S. Interstate System — with a maintenance backlog that has exceeded $10 billion. BHA questions the prudence of rescinding the Roadless Rule when doing so would add new roads and new long-term costs to an agency already struggling to maintain the extensive road system under its management."

And you can see our nation's off-road trails in the interactive map above, provided by our friends at onX Maps, as well as the affected roadless areas that we all use to hunt, fish, camp, hike, off-road, and more. But what's more frustrating is how popular with the American people this rule is, and the current administration just completly ignoring that fact, as it's been wont to do in regards to the rest of our public lands.

According to our friends over at Field & Stream, "The Forest Service created the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in 2001 under the leadership of then-USFS Chief Mike Dombeck. Dombeck tells Field & Stream that 90 percent of the 1.6 million comments submitted in the lead up to the rule supported Roadless Area protections." Today, public lands and public land access shares a near 80% approval rating among Americans. And in a time when we're supposedly so divided, almost no other issue comes even close to that sort of bipartisan agreement.

But again, the American people and their wants aren't the USDA's, Department of the Interior's, or the overall Trump Administration's concern. Selling off our lands to their friends, donors, and foreign billionaires is, and we've seen right through their statements time and time again. Yet, it's a play they keep going for because they think you're stupid. Now's the chance to show them you're not, however.

To repeal the Roadless Rule, the USDA had to open the rescission proposal up for public comment, so we'll get our say. Or at the very least, lodge our complaints directly with the federal government. That comment period will be directed here, through Regulations.gov. Likewise, you can offer up your thoughts to your elected officials in the House here, the Senate here, and I suggest you also contact your governor, too.

What do you think?

View

Comments

Don't worry, Cox will absolutely be hearing from me.

That's all to say: the fight isn't over, and they haven't won. So if you care about our public lands, in preserving them for you and I, and not just for billionaires—foreign and domestic—and want to ensure you still have places to fish, off-road, hunt, camp, and get outside, nows your chance to speak up and speak loudly.