View Full Version : Do Good: Save the Roadless Rule
SavageLlama
11-12-2004, 00:07
Save the Roadless Rule
</I>Monday (Nov. 15) is the last day to comment on the Bush administration's unbelievably awful proposal to overturn the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. You can send comments directly to the feds here (http://comments.regulations.gov/EXTERNAL/Comments.cfm?DocketID=04-20370&CFID=104290&CFTOKEN=49557045). Or, you can submit a comment through the Wilderness Society, who will cc your governor, here (http://ga1.org/campaign/roadless).
If you're not yet convinced that scrapping the Roadless Rule is a manifestly bad idea, the Wilderness Society has the Top Ten Reasons (http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/Top10ReasonsRoadless.cfm).
The Appalachian Trail enjoys protection from the Roadless Rule. Read MSNBC's article, which quotes the exec director of the ATC by clicking here (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5887173).
Do good. Write to save the Roadless Rule.
Thank you, SavageLama. You made it easy.
Rain Man
11-12-2004, 11:51
DONE!!!
And .... THANKS for making it timely and easy.
:sun
Rain Man
.
shades of blue
11-12-2004, 12:38
Thanks lama...not sure how much good it will do, but my comment has also been sent.
Jack Tarlin
11-12-2004, 18:18
I also just sent a letter.
Thanks, Llama, for sending this along.
smokymtnsteve
11-12-2004, 18:35
your eithier for Bush or against him...make up your mind!
Sent. Thanks for the info Llama.
grrickar
11-12-2004, 19:49
your eithier for Bush or against him...make up your mind!
If voting for someone means to I have to agree with everything they say I guess I'll quit voting altogether...
I sent my letter :D
Another one sent out. Thanks
SavageLlama
11-12-2004, 22:56
I also just sent a letter.
Thanks, Llama, for sending this along.
Your welcome. Hopefully the Roadless Rule will be saved.
sleeveless
11-13-2004, 00:17
Thanks for the link. I also sent comment.
Mini-Mosey
11-13-2004, 11:35
Thanks very much; mine sent.
MileMonster
11-13-2004, 12:03
Thanks for the heads up.
MisterSweetie
11-13-2004, 13:24
Not looking for a batch letter here, but anyone have any suggestions as to what to write?
bearbait2k4
11-13-2004, 14:58
Not looking for a batch letter here, but anyone have any suggestions as to what to write?
You can comment on possible economic impact of this decision, i.e. the effects of erosion, landslides, and flooding that usually occur w/ clearcutting land and forests, and the economic impact of federal clean-up. Try to tie money into it, because that's usually all that interests people.
Pencil Pusher
11-13-2004, 18:39
Breaking away from this biased information, do any of you really know what you're writing against? Or are you just writing these letters like sheep? http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/id_07/fr_pr.html
Good point Pencil Pusher! There are two sides to the story and legitimate reasons for "some" roads, ie, fighting forest fires, management of dangerous underbrush, flood prevention monitoring programs, certain rescue missions, etc.
shades of blue
11-13-2004, 21:44
baa, baa
You know, if the gov't could do anything in moderation, it would be one thing. Pencil...you KNOW the reason to open up these wilderness areas more is to log. Why should the tax payers pay money to destroy our wilderness areas for lumber companies to make more money? If we don't take care of our national resources, who will? President Bush wants to drill in the Arctic. He wants to repeal safeguards against pollution. So...ummmm who exactly is the sheep here? Maybe baa....baa....should be our new national language.
Tha Wookie
11-14-2004, 02:59
Baa Baa
I sent mine from Loreto, Mexico!
SavageLlama
11-15-2004, 11:58
Today's the last day to get your comments in. See the first post for easy links to submit comments.
hillsidedigger
03-08-2007, 08:15
Are federal roadless areas off-limits to people?
“The worst possible thing to do now is to install gates, close trails, remove recreation facilities, and declare 192 million acres of forest service land off-limits to people. The problem has been created. Closing eyes and minds to it is not the way to address it."
http://freedom.org/news/200703/07/ryan.phtml (http://freedom.org/news/200703/07/ryan.phtml)
So what he's really saying is the federal government needs to spend tens of millions of dollars to construct roads into the remaining roadless areas so a few private entities can profit from taking out marginal timber that has heretofore always been unprofitable to attempt to extract.
"Let it burn (fires of natural origins)" is not such a bad-policy and control burns can work.
Is this article talking about Sequoias or Redwoods?
:confused: