<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Roadless rule shot down, again]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by bkrell http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/ Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:25:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/1 roads and roadlessness

He's right about one thing-lack of roads can prevent the FS from doing it's job.  As an FS peon, I can say we have a LOT of masters to please.  Everything we do gets criticized by environmental groups, logging interests, and recreation groups at the same time.  I never thought it was possible to be hated by so many people at once!

]]> roads and roadlessness

He's right about one thing-lack of roads can prevent the FS from doing it's job.  As an FS peon, I can say we have a LOT of masters to please.  Everything we do gets criticized by environmental groups, logging interests, and recreation groups at the same time.  I never thought it was possible to be hated by so many people at once!

]]> Comment #2 by MattKirby http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/ Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:41:19 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/2 We shouldn't worry too much. . . yet

This is a terrible move, no doubt, but it is worth noting that it doesn't necessarily negate the California ruling that reinstated Clinton's rule.  They are two competing courts and no one has authority to overturn the other.  And the California ruling was made first.  Mike Anderson, an attorney at the Wilderness Society, is quoted in an AP article as saying that in his opinion, the California ruling is still in effect:

"It is not in any way overturned or compromised by Judge Brimmer's decision in Wyoming today. What it does do is create two conflicting court decisions in different federal courts, different states, both issuing decisions with nationwide impact."

Right now it's just important that we make sure to protect these places that provide vital habitat and crucial waterways until there's more legal clarity.

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/index.asp

]]> We shouldn't worry too much. . . yet

This is a terrible move, no doubt, but it is worth noting that it doesn't necessarily negate the California ruling that reinstated Clinton's rule.  They are two competing courts and no one has authority to overturn the other.  And the California ruling was made first.  Mike Anderson, an attorney at the Wilderness Society, is quoted in an AP article as saying that in his opinion, the California ruling is still in effect:

"It is not in any way overturned or compromised by Judge Brimmer's decision in Wyoming today. What it does do is create two conflicting court decisions in different federal courts, different states, both issuing decisions with nationwide impact."

Right now it's just important that we make sure to protect these places that provide vital habitat and crucial waterways until there's more legal clarity.

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/index.asp

]]> Comment #3 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/ Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:34:47 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/3 Can't Do Jobs? Good!

The Deforest Service's "job" is to kill trees, or more specifically to allow logging companies to do so.  Secondarily, it also allows ranchers to destroy land by grazing cattle in and near forests.  These forms of ecological destruction also cause the deaths of animals whose habitats they destroy.  The Earth rejoices if the Forest Service can't do its job.

]]> Can't Do Jobs? Good!

The Deforest Service's "job" is to kill trees, or more specifically to allow logging companies to do so.  Secondarily, it also allows ranchers to destroy land by grazing cattle in and near forests.  These forms of ecological destruction also cause the deaths of animals whose habitats they destroy.  The Earth rejoices if the Forest Service can't do its job.

]]> Comment #4 by Pathos http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/ Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:59:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/4 Wolverine,

Thanks for proving bkrell's point.

Bkrell,
What are the roads the forest service builds mostly used for? The stereotype is logging roads. Do they serve any other, more conservation-minded purpose--and if so, are they used more for that, or more for logging?

And while I don't think anyone is going to call you a liar, if you have any sources you could link us to (like, something not likely to have been watered down by the Bush administration, because it's very hard for enviro's to trust the government these days), that'd be appreciated.

]]> Wolverine,

Thanks for proving bkrell's point.

Bkrell,
What are the roads the forest service builds mostly used for? The stereotype is logging roads. Do they serve any other, more conservation-minded purpose--and if so, are they used more for that, or more for logging?

And while I don't think anyone is going to call you a liar, if you have any sources you could link us to (like, something not likely to have been watered down by the Bush administration, because it's very hard for enviro's to trust the government these days), that'd be appreciated.

]]> Comment #5 by wendigo http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:16:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/5 roads are the opposite of conservation

Pathos, I realize you are trying to be fair-minded, which I appreciate.  But most USFS roads are built for access to timber sales.  In addition to logging, the roads themselves, either directly or indirectly, bring invasive weeds, increased fire danger, increased stream siltation (which leads to higher water temperatures less hospitable to salmon and trout), and, maybe most importantly, habitat fragmentation.  

Many studies have shown that increasing road density directly correlates with decreasing animal populations, especially large mammals such as elk and bear (see http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc96/TO450/PAP413/ ... for an example study).  Back in grad school, I did a study that showed a correlation between increased road density and decrease in quality of lynx habitat in Colorado, several years ago when CO was trying to re-establish lynx in the state.  

There are plenty more studies available, but the point is that roads in a forest generally have a negative effect on the forest itself, and on the animals that live there.

]]> roads are the opposite of conservation

Pathos, I realize you are trying to be fair-minded, which I appreciate.  But most USFS roads are built for access to timber sales.  In addition to logging, the roads themselves, either directly or indirectly, bring invasive weeds, increased fire danger, increased stream siltation (which leads to higher water temperatures less hospitable to salmon and trout), and, maybe most importantly, habitat fragmentation.  

Many studies have shown that increasing road density directly correlates with decreasing animal populations, especially large mammals such as elk and bear (see http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc96/TO450/PAP413/ ... for an example study).  Back in grad school, I did a study that showed a correlation between increased road density and decrease in quality of lynx habitat in Colorado, several years ago when CO was trying to re-establish lynx in the state.  

There are plenty more studies available, but the point is that roads in a forest generally have a negative effect on the forest itself, and on the animals that live there.

]]> Comment #6 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:38:33 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/6 Roads Are First Step Toward Ecological Destruction

I've never seen any evidence of any road that had positive ecological effects; if you have some, please share it.

Roads are ecologically harmful per se.  In order to make them the natural vegetation must be killed and barren land permanently used to replace it.  Roads also fragment habitat for many animals that won't cross them.

Once vehicles start using them, those vehicles bring with them non-native species, which do harm to the natives wherever they're deposited.  And then the ultimate harm, the logging or other destructive activities that the roads enable.

]]> Roads Are First Step Toward Ecological Destruction

I've never seen any evidence of any road that had positive ecological effects; if you have some, please share it.

Roads are ecologically harmful per se.  In order to make them the natural vegetation must be killed and barren land permanently used to replace it.  Roads also fragment habitat for many animals that won't cross them.

Once vehicles start using them, those vehicles bring with them non-native species, which do harm to the natives wherever they're deposited.  And then the ultimate harm, the logging or other destructive activities that the roads enable.

]]> Comment #7 by catman http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/ Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:04:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/roadless3/7 If any humans

If any humans survive the coming anthropocene die-off, they will probably be those recently discovered South American tribes that live in a huge roadless area.

]]> If any humans

If any humans survive the coming anthropocene die-off, they will probably be those recently discovered South American tribes that live in a huge roadless area.

]]>