I would encourage everyone who has an opinion about the Roadless Rule — on either side — to actually read about it before reacting to a headline or repeating someone else’s talking points.
This isn’t a simple “protect nature vs. destroy nature” issue, and it shouldn’t be reduced to whether you support or oppose the current administration. The debate over how the Forest Service manages inventoried roadless areas has been going on for decades, through Republican and Democratic administrations, multiple court battles, congressional involvement and state-specific compromises. Colorado and Idaho already operate under their own roadless rules rather than the nationwide 2001 rule.
There are legitimate reasons the Roadless Rule was created. Roads can fragment habitat, affect watersheds and change undeveloped landscapes. Those concerns deserve consideration. There are also legitimate questions about whether a blanket national rule covering tens of millions of acres unnecessarily limits local forest managers, active forest management, wildfire mitigation, timber management and the multiple-use mission of our National Forests. Even the history of the rule shows that states have repeatedly sought more locally appropriate solutions.
I have been an advocate for access in addition to lending my support to preservation and conservation efforts. After digging into both sides, I support rescinding the nationwide Roadless Rule. That does not mean I support building roads everywhere, clear-cutting forests or abandoning conservation. I think there is plenty of room for compromise: protect genuinely sensitive and ecologically important areas while allowing responsible, site-specific management where it makes sense.
Photo by Kelly & Ben Wicklund
Most importantly, read beyond the memes and political posts. Read why the rule was created. Read the arguments for keeping it. Read the arguments for rescinding it. Read about the Colorado and Idaho approaches. Understand what “roadless” actually means and what rescission would — and would not — authorize.
Rescinding the Roadless Rule isn’t an argument for putting roads everywhere. It’s an argument that the Forest Service should be allowed to decide where roads and active management are appropriate rather than having nearly one-third of the National Forest System governed by a nationwide presumption against them.
Public-land policy is complicated. It deserves more thought than “someone cool on my side says this is bad, or bad orange man supports it therefore it is bad.”
Dad enjoying a ride in the Nicolet National Forest.
If you agree that public lands need thoughtful, balanced management — and that access and conservation don’t have to be opposing ideas — I encourage you to learn more about BlueRibbon Coalition. Visit their website, follow the issues they’re working on, and consider becoming a member. Whether you agree with every position or not, staying informed and engaged is far more valuable than letting public-land policy be decided by whoever has the loudest talking points. Our access to these places deserves our attention, our participation and our willingness to understand the issues before taking a side.
-Cindy Pope
Northology Adventures
