|
Last Friday was the final day of the U.S. Forest Service’s 21-day comment period on the agency’s plan to repeal the Roadless Rule, which currently protects over 58.8 million acres of national forest land from road-building, logging, and other industrial activity. An analysis by the Center for Western Priorities (CWP) found that over 99 percent of the 183,000 comments submitted to regulations.gov as of Friday morning opposed the Trump administration’s plan to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Earlier this summer, Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the Trump administration's plan to repeal the Roadless Rule in order to increase timber production and reduce wildfire risk in national forests, though research has shown that increasing the amount of roads in forests actually increases wildfire risk. “This attack on the Roadless Rule and on America’s forests is nothing more than a giveaway to timber and mining companies,” said CWP Deputy Director Aaron Weiss. “Throwing open our forests for clear cuts and strip mines will increase wildfire risk, decrease water quality, degrade habitat, and harm the backcountry that outdoorsmen and women hold dear.”
Historically, the Roadless Rule has received extremely strong public support, receiving 1.6 million public comments when it was first proposed by the Clinton administration, with the vast majority of commenters favoring it. A 2019 poll by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 75 percent of the public supported the rule, and also found that those in rural areas are just as likely to support the policy as those in non-rural areas. “Across state lines and party lines, Americans spoke with one voice to tell President Trump to stop this attack on America’s forests,” said Weiss. “Public support for the Roadless Rule has only increased in the quarter century it has been in place.”
|
America's public lands are the engine of the $1.2 trillion outdoor economy and should be protected so future generations can continue hiking, climbing, and recreating in our most cherished places. The rescission of the public lands rule would not only prevent accessible outdoor recreation on these vital lands but also hurt the small businesses and gateway communities that rely on it.”
