U.S. Forest Service - Content Analysis Team
Re: Proposed Rulemaking Special Areas,
Dear Forest Service Chief Bosworth:
The Property Rights Foundation of America represents involved American citizens from every state of the Union, from Hawaii and Alaska, from Washington and California to Maine and Florida. The Property Rights Foundation of America would like to enter its support for the new roadless area regulation proposed on July 16, 2004 that is intended to replace the 2001 rule. A complete, well-designed roadway infrastructure is essential to Forest Service lands.
It is the benefit of the health of forests and to federal lands in general to maintain access to all Forest Service lands, whether actively used for sustainable forestry, mining, recreation, or other purposes, or relatively less used as remote backcountry lands. It is essential that local participation, productive multiple use of federally owned forests, economic vitality of the locality and the nation, and historic roadway uses be paramount in decisions about roadway access to federal lands. Roadway access to the forest lands under the U.S. Forest Service must be fully maintained and improved in order to maintain the forests, protect them from extreme fires, save wildlife, and preserve the diverse wildlife habitat. The system of neglect and an extremist agenda to close access has resulted in the destruction of millions of acres of forest and wildlife, cruelly killing millions of wild creatures including endangered species, destroying habitat, polluting the air and water, and wastefully destroying natural resources that are essential to the productive local and national economy.
We support the Forest Service in its efforts to repair the
incorrect application of NEPA in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation
Rule. An informed process should replace the 2001 process, which
was biased by a one-sided radical preservation agenda that is
harmful to the environment in the extreme. In the process that
resulted in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, substantive
concerns raised by the public and by local, state and federal
officials were inexplicably ignored. The proposed rule results
from justified consideration of these concerns.