Babylon Today | home
Is it reasonable that our forests, or even part of our forests, should remain roadless as virtually all environmental groups advocate? I would suggest that this is just one more step offered by the collectivist Marxist, never-were-brave-enough-to-go-out-and-earn-two-nickels-in-the-real-economy, hippies [I was one] to nationalize and eventually globalize all of our public and private lands. At the same time they are creating a wildlife community that will become so dangerous, especially to a hiker that is required to be defenseless, that eventually only a fool will venture into any of our public lands. There is little doubt that the only possible support for the roadless position is based purely on pop-science.
Read all of the roadless arguments, by "environmnetal" organizations, that are obviously all based in pop-pseudo-science presumption, in the context of the pro-road elements below.
Update on May 8, 2005 our forests may have indeed been returned to our people and saved from wildfires and other destructive consequences that would have resulted from roadless policies.
It is unreasonable to presume that just because a road or trail exists in a forest, means that it would need to be used any more often (by ATV) than once or twice every decade or two. I would appreciate comments suggesting that this amount of use could have any impact whatsoever on wildlife. Rules of thumb for roads might contain the following:
.....Roads suitable for trucks should only be built where they are necessary to support a system of non-primary trails, and where they are environmentally, in terms of erosion, topographically reasonable.
.....Non-primary roads need be no more improved than the trail that is produced and left by a bulldozer after only enough tree clearing has been done to allow a track vehicle, or other type of all-terrain vehicle, to traverse on the contour.
.....Restrict use of roads to authorized persons on an as-required basis, easily only once every 5 or 10 years for most forests.
The benefits of roads would be the following:
.....Roads could be used for forest fire fighting ingress and egress, even employing small ATVs, and would absolutely save the lives of forest fighters. This would also allow much more necessary equipment to be brought in to manage or initiate fires.
.....Roads could be used to provide access for periodic (once every 10 or 20 years as necessary) prescribed burning if not otherwise accomplished by helicopter.
.....Roads could be used to bring equipment and personnel in to thin smaller trees and knock down dead snags from our desperately overcrowded and over-fueled forests.
.....Roads could provide important access for real environmentalists and naturalists, not unqualified pseudo-scientists from faux "environmental groups", to study wildlife and assess the health of the local ecosystem to help head off developing problems on an as needed basis.
.....In areas where hiker, backpacker, or hunter use is allowed, trails would constitute the path-of-least-resistance, allowing the local wildlife to predict the normal course of human activity allowing them to adjust their habits and homes accordingly.