Smithsonian Magazine: The Case for Destroying Old Forest Roads

[bigriver]

Well put Marcel... thank you.

[marret]

Plus 1, thanks for clarifying Marcel.

[N147JK]

Originally Posted by Marcel Huijser

But to say that no dirt roads can or should be removed is hurting nature

I think removal of many of these roads just takes a little common sense and is a good idea, but we need to be careful with the language. The statement above could be understood to say:

"saying that you don't agree with me means you're OK with hurting nature"

I doubt if someone who doesn't want any road removal actually feels that way. It's also of course not in the least bit scientific. So, even "scientists" need to stay on top of and be aware of what actually motivates their work. Our minds like to play tricks on us.

[Marcel Huijser]

I appreciate all the replies.
It seems that we may be close to being in agreement on the topic.
It is always a good idea to think things through and listen to different perspectives.
We only have one world and we need to figure things out together.

[arctictraveller]

[QUOTE=Marcel Huijser;[/QUOTE]

First off, let me say that one reason I love this site is because we can have civil discussions without devolving into all the drama and name calling seen on so many other sites. Second, I fully admit to not reading all the referenced article since it appeared to me to be yet another story about all the reasons we should close off even more access to the back county that have traditionally been open to all. There is currently a huge movement to limit access to OUR public land, and it's happening everywhere. Half way through the article, I thought I don't need to read any more, I've read it all before. Perhaps if I had read the entire thing I might have felt differently, but I doubt it.

"We need roads, but roads also have negative impacts."

There are few things we humans do that don't have impacts. Does a dirt road have a similar impact to say, a freeway? Should we reduce the number of lanes to reduce that impact? I think not

"It has nothing to do with being woke or what your political beliefs are. "

I completely agree

"Furthermore, it is not that all two-tracks and dirt roads need to be removed or that they will be removed and that you and I are about to lose all access to the places we want to go."

There are plenty of folks who would like to see all off road access closed to all but hikers and horse back riders, and they are slowly chipping away at that access. If we don't stand up and fight for what we believe, we stand to loose access to huge amounts of OUR public land, it's already happened in many places. The BLM's "travel management plan" has closed hundreds of miles of popular roads and trails in Moab, put up barbed wire and gates and it looks like there will be far more closures coming up in other places and in many Western states.

"The lands discussed in the article are public lands. These lands have many different uses and functions, and there will always be changes in the management to balance the different interests and responsibilities... no specific interest group or responsibility will ever be 100% served on multi-use lands... that is simply not possible."

I agree, but by completely eliminating access to only those that can hike in or ride on a horse, I think that is the exact definition of a "specific interest group". With proper management, most all groups should be able to be accommodated, but not by wholesale closure of all road access.

"So, even when you do own and use a 4x4 van, even when you do want to use dirt roads to get to remote places, you do not have to object to the removal of selected roads in some areas..."

Again, I agree, but there has to be some balance, and so far, the faction that would like to see ALL remote access eliminated is having a huge, demonstrated impact. I also agree that there are likely a few roads that should be closed, but the closure of hundreds and hundreds of miles of traditional access to some of the most scenic back country doesn't appear to be based mostly on science.

"But what I see happening in this discussion is an attempt to discredit science"

I personally don't discredit science. Actions based on science make sense, but there has to be compromise. I further believe that many closures are in fact politically motivated...........Thanks for listening.

[SteelheadJones]

I’ll just add that science isn’t some unassailable holy grail. It’s fluid and ever-evolving. Part of the scientific method is to question the things we know to be true.

[N147JK]

Originally Posted by SteelheadJones

question the things we know to be true.

I think you mean, question the things we think we know to be true. Of course, these days some people question things that are obviously true (or false), which leads to all kinds of unnecessary problems.

[SteelheadJones]

I meant to say it that way, the idea being to question those things you take for granted.

[deserteagle56]

Originally Posted by Marcel Huijser

So, even when you do own and use a 4x4 van, even when you do want to use dirt roads to get to remote places, you do not have to object to the removal of selected roads in some areas... in fact, it can help protect why most of us want to be in those places to begin with... we can get behind such efforts rather than oppose them.

Oxymoron. You want to "protect" those areas we want to be in by closing the roads that access them. How then are we going to get to those places we want to be in??

I've not seen too much of "science" when closing off public land from the public. 20+ years ago Nevada's own Harry Reid sold out rural Nevadans by helping create the Black Rock Desert National Conservation Area. Created by Congress and politicians, not scientists. They drew some lines on a map and that was it. 1.2 Million acres. If you had mining claims in there...too bad, so sad. If you were running cattle inside those lines and needed to maintain your windmills...too bad, so sad. All but a few major roads were closed. Years before that, Congress created the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge just north of the Black Rock. Another 600,000 acres where camping is restricted and travel is restricted to only main roads "to protect the wildlife". I live not far from there and drive across the Sheldon occasionally and I can tell you, you'll see a lot more wildlife in and around Nevada's ranches and farms than you will out on the Sheldon. What I see out there is wild horses and burros.


So, nearly 2 million acres of northwest Nevada where travel is restricted.

Oh, and if you want to see wildlife...attend Burning Man on the Black Rock Desert.

[deserteagle56]

Originally Posted by arctictraveller

I personally don't discredit science. Actions based on science make sense, but there has to be compromise. I further believe that many closures are in fact politically motivated...........Thanks for listening.

^This!

A scientist can't close off public land. But politicians can and do...and the deciding factor is campaign contributions, NOT science.