What percentage want roadless?

[Ithaca 37]

"Ninety percent of respondents said loud and clear, "We want the remaining 58.5 million acres of unroaded forest lands to be protected for clean water, wildlife habitat, quality fisheries, and recreation opportunities." Ignoring and upending crystal clear public intent, President Bush has........."

"According to a recent Trout Unlimited report, Idaho's hunters take the largest elk and mule deer from roadless lands....."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040922/NEWS0503/409220310/1052/NEWS05

 

[cjcj]

I don`t have a problem with roadless areas, but i think there should be a "reasonable mix" limited access/no roads/some roads etc.

 

[1_pointer]

cj- I think reasonable has been reached. In the Lower 48 there are many more acres with roads than without.

The big thing that bothers me about this is that the governor of a state, who is only held accountable to thier constituents, is making decisions that affect the land owned by the whole country. Backwards logic from this view.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I would probably agree with leaving things "status quo." There is a good enough mix of "roaded" areas and non-roaded areas. I can only speak about the areas I am familiar with, though.

 

[cjcj]

Well i do think there are way,way to many roads, in AZ, I do need access, but i like to glass/scout from high points etc, but you can`t find to many areas where there arn`t alot of roads [wilderness is a good place to keep roadless] but the north kaibab for instance has too many roads. i guess it just depends where you hunt.

 

[1_pointer]

Cali- I agree with the amount of area, but many of the roaded areas are WAY too roaded. I would be for closing roads in most areas. Don't get me wrong, not all of them. But, every ridge does not need a road.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

No, Tyler, not every ridge needs a road on it - only the one where MY bull is down. Just kidding.

Are those areas with that many roads remote enough or "recover-able" enough to make it worthwhile to shut down some of the existing roads?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,

All those places could be "improved" if the roads were removed. They will revert back to some sort of natural state with overseeding, ripping, and similar.

Just locking the roads and banning the Fat-Assed ATV riders is enough to improve habitat and security.

Many of the places that were up for Wilderness Studies don't have roads to begin with. There was little roads being removed, just prevented in the future.

 

[1_pointer]

CH- Yes. There's been extensive studies looking at this in the Clearwater Natl. Forest in ID. The roads that require the most work are those on steep slopes, due mostly to their erosion potential. Those are less steep slopes can be 're-claimed' pretty easily by just discing and seeding.

The biggest problem is that many don't know or respect the closures. I do know that the new travel plan for the Wasatch-Cache NF in No. UT will be closing as much as 40% of roads in ALOT of areas. Access will only be granted in many of these for USFS employees for administrative purpose or permittee to maintain improvements.

 

[Ten Bears]

The big problem with the closures is lack of enforcement. I agree that much of the current roadless areas need to remain roadless, and that there is little to be gained by roading it.
I believe that there are roaded areas that could use to be less roaded.
I support road closures in varying degrees: 1. Closed to full sized passenger vehicles (greater then 50 inches in width) 2. Closed to ALL motorized vehicles greater then 30 inches in width 3. Closed to all motorized vehiles and horses. But there must be an equal amount of closure/access of existing roads.