stevenmd
Expedition Leader
I don't know if this has been posted here yet: http://access-advocates.org/take_action.htm
Petition
- Thread starter stevenmd
- Start date
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
I looked, I read, and I'm afraid they won't get my signature. The petition is full of half-truths and outright falsehoods. It's a simple attempt to preserve motorized access (which is fine, if a majority of those who respond support that goal) dressed up as a healthy forest initiative (which it isn't, and which is not fine).
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
Sure, Steven.
This:
This would be good for the environment by promoting bio-diversity & forest health
. . . is an outright lie. The U.S. Forest Service's own studies prove that roadless areas suffer far fewer catastrophic fires and less erosion damage than roaded areas. Roadless areas also support denser wildlife populations. Like it or not, roaded areas compromise habitat to a greater or lesser degree. The petitioners don't have a shred of scientific evidence to back their claim.
Again:
We find these wilderness bills, as well as other restrictive proposals, will have a huge negative impact on the environment
. . . is a blatant lie.
This:
because these roads could be maintained for perhaps 30 years for what it will cost to remove them
. . . is an absurd claim. The Forest Service has billions of dollars in backlogged road maintenance that is not being accomplished due to congressional budget cuts.
This:
Long-term logging provides a renewable resource product in perpetuity, while paying taxes & providing jobs
is another specious claim. Logging on public lands costs taxpayers millions of dollars per year in subsidies.
This:
which propose to remove 6300 miles of backcountry roads without any public involvement.
. . . proves they need an editor. Also, I see no figure here on what percentage of those "backcountry roads" are actually wildcat trails. The Forest Service in Arizona has closed a bunch of such trails; no public comment is needed when the trail in question is illegal and bashed through by slobs. Also, much of this work in Arizona is done by volunteers - no public money needed (unfortunately there is no way to bill the people who are responsible for the damage to start with).
Finally, this:
eliminates recreation access.
. . . is insulting. Roadless areas do not eliminate recreation access. They eliminate motorized access, period.
As I said, I have no problem with a citizen initiative to maintain motorized access to a particular area. One group wants to drive there, another wants more habitat protection and walking trails. The democratic process - and, hopefully, sound science - prevails. But when one side (either one) resorts to falsehoods to make its case, it doesn't deserve to win.
This:
This would be good for the environment by promoting bio-diversity & forest health
. . . is an outright lie. The U.S. Forest Service's own studies prove that roadless areas suffer far fewer catastrophic fires and less erosion damage than roaded areas. Roadless areas also support denser wildlife populations. Like it or not, roaded areas compromise habitat to a greater or lesser degree. The petitioners don't have a shred of scientific evidence to back their claim.
Again:
We find these wilderness bills, as well as other restrictive proposals, will have a huge negative impact on the environment
. . . is a blatant lie.
This:
because these roads could be maintained for perhaps 30 years for what it will cost to remove them
. . . is an absurd claim. The Forest Service has billions of dollars in backlogged road maintenance that is not being accomplished due to congressional budget cuts.
This:
Long-term logging provides a renewable resource product in perpetuity, while paying taxes & providing jobs
is another specious claim. Logging on public lands costs taxpayers millions of dollars per year in subsidies.
This:
which propose to remove 6300 miles of backcountry roads without any public involvement.
. . . proves they need an editor. Also, I see no figure here on what percentage of those "backcountry roads" are actually wildcat trails. The Forest Service in Arizona has closed a bunch of such trails; no public comment is needed when the trail in question is illegal and bashed through by slobs. Also, much of this work in Arizona is done by volunteers - no public money needed (unfortunately there is no way to bill the people who are responsible for the damage to start with).
Finally, this:
eliminates recreation access.
. . . is insulting. Roadless areas do not eliminate recreation access. They eliminate motorized access, period.
As I said, I have no problem with a citizen initiative to maintain motorized access to a particular area. One group wants to drive there, another wants more habitat protection and walking trails. The democratic process - and, hopefully, sound science - prevails. But when one side (either one) resorts to falsehoods to make its case, it doesn't deserve to win.
Last edited:
Trail Monkey
Adventurer, Overland Certified OC0014
jonathan
well stated..!
well stated..!
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
No worries, Steven. I've been involved with these issues for years from both an activist and academic viewpoint, so I know all the little sound bites these groups stick in there to lend themselves credibility.