Originally posted by trumptman
A perfect example is that many of the links are detailing their ongoing dissatisfaction with Bush and the roadless rule. So when did this horrible rule go into effect? January of 2001. When did Clinton issue it? On his way out the door, just like with the arsenic. Does that mean that national forests could have roads built through them for the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency? You betcha.
The roadless rule first came up a year and a half before Clinton left office:http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/...memorandum.htm
It went through the whole long and winding federal comment process. But pretend that Clinton scribbled on a post-it note before he left office if you like.
The roadless rule only applies to the 60 million or so FS acres that have no roads in them. As in, no roads were built in them during the Clinton administration either. Yes there was road building going on during the Clinton admin in the forests. But it was in areas inventoried by the FS in the Other category. There are different categories, IRA-Roads Allowed, IRA-Roads Not Allowed, IRA-Wilderness Recommendation, Wilderness and Other (as in already has roads). The anti-environment movement would have you believe that Clinton tried to stop road building on all FS land. Not true at all. That rule stated that areas which do not yet have roads to date should be reviewed for wilderness quality and be left roadless.
Now, to move on. Does Bush allow anyone to build roads however they would like? No.
Bush didn't even bother to defend the roadless rule.
Past that, you are undoubtedly aware of how he compares on designating wilderness (the only federal protection from road building) compared to past presidents including elephants like his father, Reagan, Nixon, Ford etc. It's a pitiful record.
Does the Bush "rollback" (how can you rollback something that was never in effect?) allow state governors to petition the federal government to set up roadless areas instead of having the federal government decide what is best from thousands of miles away? Yes.
Hello. These are the federal lands. Not state lands. Yes people thousands of miles away are often better informed on how to take care of them as they often are interested in the best and highest use for the land. As opposed to this interested in milking it for a buck and then moving on.
So why is the group upset? Because they don't believe that local people will have their own interests in mind I suppose. Also the biggest objection from the site itself is the possible introduction of non-native animals and plants to the area. We are not talking about environmental damage, unless of course any sort of change from pure stasis is damage. (which it is in the minds of these folks) We are talking about folks who don't even want us to have access to our own national lands for any purpose, not even to visit.
No one is arguing that. You think these roadless areas are all the size of the FCRONRW? Christ, at least argue on point instead of with these strawmen.
The non-native species issue is a non-issue. It's unrealistic to think it will happen but arguing that there is no logic behind the goal is just silly.
Would you care to mention which of those three national parks have no roads going to them and are only accessable by hiking? Those parks have roads built into them to facilitate public access and use. It's our land, we are supposed to be allowed to enjoy it. Of course to some even enjoyment is destroying it.
No one has suggested the extreme type of nonsense you knock down. /sarcasm Yes, supporting any road building for public access of public lands means that we want the entire park paved over. /sarcasm off
THis has nothing to do with anything. Those three parks are DOI land managed by the NPS. They never were subject to the Roadless Rule which applied to FS IRAs. One has little to do with the other. You can actually support hte roadless rule, which again has to do with FS areas with no roads in them yet, and still support roadbuilding in non-wilderness NPS land like the Yosemite Valley. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The point is that these parks would not even have roads built into them for any sort of access.
Except that they could and would since the roadless rule had nothing to do with NPS land, even non-wilderness roadless NPS land. If the NPS decided to they could have built a road from your front door right to the base of Half Dome and it would not have been in violation of the roadless rule at all.
You were using caricatures but the reality is that when you can't build any sort of road into a national park, it severely limits access which is of course exactly the point.
Everyone sing along: Except that the roadless rule has nothing to do with national parks and so the rule in no way prevents what you suggest.
The NPS has a focus much more on serving people than the USFS. FS lands or IRAs more specifically, those roadless rule lands, are a different story.