Your article “Clinton-era roadless rule is back …
for now” overlooks some key facts about recent developments and
threats still facing roadless areas in our national forests.
While noting that a Wyoming court enjoined the Roadless
Rule, the article failed to mention that a higher court — the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals — strongly upheld the
Rule’s legality. And the article’s conclusion that
Judge Laporte’s decision “has done more to confuse the issue
of forest management than anything else” suggests some confusion on
the author’s part. The Roadless Rule that Laporte reinstated
provides much clearer management direction for roadless areas than
the chaotic state-by-state and forest-by-forest approach that the
current administration was pursuing.
As you mentioned,
“(Agriculture) Undersecretary Mark Rey has begun touting the
Administrative Procedures Act — which allows any individual
to petition for regulatory change — as another option for
states to continue forward under the Administration’s
unpopular plan.” This is especially ironic given that the Forest
Service has refused to respond to, or even acknowledge, the 250,000
citizens who filed petitions under that very law this past March
seeking to reinstate the Roadless Rule.
Mark Rey’s
headlong pursuit of developing our pristine forests conflicts not
only with the wishes of millions of Americans, but with the
findings of scientists and economists. For once, Rey should listen
to the public and start to focus instead on the real management
problems facing our national forests.
Mike
Anderson
Senior Resource Analyst
The
Wilderness Society
Seattle, Washington
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Roadless Rule provided clear direction.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
