July 29, 2006

'Hunters, anglers should back roadless wild areas'

That's the headline on enviro-blogger Jonathan Hanson's recent op-ed piece in the Arizona Republic

Colorado, too, is finishing this laborious and pointless roadless-area review--pointless because we went through it just a few years ago, and the public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of roadless areas then, as they were this year.

One quick excerpt from Hanson's piece:

Some say we need more roads for fire crews to fight wildfires. But according to the Forest Service, destructive fires occur much more frequently in roaded and logged areas than in roadless areas, and human-caused fires are almost five times more likely to start near a road. The Roadless Rule allows firefighters motorized access to fight wildfires within roadless areas.

Some hunters say roadless areas make hunting more difficult. But as true conservationist hunters, we should consider the health of the game first, our own convenience second. Several studies have shown that roadless areas make the best wildlife habitat. And I'm happy to work hard to enjoy a quality hunting experience in wild country unspoiled by the noise of vehicles.

Oh yeah, he's a Republican. Where do we get this idea that only Democrats favor environmental protection?


Anonymous said...

Eventually wont we run out of forests than what what do you propose we do?

Chas S. Clifton said...

Run out? For timber? Not likely. Right here in this county there is enough forest land nn private lands to support a couple of sawmills, if it were managed for that purpose.

But much of the public-land forest is not economically feasible for timber harvest--the trees are too small, they are the wrong species, they are located on difficult terrain, etc.

Ecological conditions matter. An acre of forested land in Georgia does not equal an acre of forested land in southern Colorado does not equal an acre of forested land in California's Coast Range.