Trending
Roadless Rule. It was controversial a quarter century ago and it appears that it remains so. The "environmental" PACs are coming-out in earnest, no doubt hoping to drum-up memberships with sensationalist boilerplate language that often doesn't mean much after critical review.
First, most of the Roadless Area (a federal designation) lies in a handful of western states, and half of that probably would not be considered as forests, at least from a visual standpoint. Not that unforested lands haven't ecological and other values. They do. However, if one adopts a forestland perspective, much of those areas are unproductive. The 2001 policy was to hold federal roadless areas "on hold" pending future study and deliberations.
Secondly, Michigan has only 16,000 acres of designated Roadless Area. For the most part, nobody in their right might would venture into most of it, as more than half is practically an impenetrable swamp. Think the Delerium Unit in the eastern Hiawatha National Forest. Uffda. It's called that for a reason, and it's not related to joyful bliss.
Similarly, the Bear Swamp area on the Manistee National Forest is, well, a swamp. Difficult to slog through. The Norwich Plains, on the Ottawa National Forest, does have some potential for timber, recreation, and other values, but also has a considerable amount of "low quality" real estate.
On the other hand, Government Island, in the Les Cheneaux islands, is rather attractive. Although, it will remain roadless with or without any special designation, due to inaccessibility.
Thirdly, the Roadless Rule was enacted largely for western states. The battle to keep, or not keep, these areas is one for the west. Roadless Areas in the east were mostly an effort to fit a square peg into a round bureaucratic hole. Many of the "Roadless" Areas are not roadless, some have been cutover, and most have been burned at least once. Yet, each national forest was required to conform to the rule even where it made no ecological sense.
Changes to the management, or lack thereof, are unlikely, as the parcels consist mostly of "non-commercial" lands. So, the hub-bub about rescinding the Roadless Area designation is moot. At least in Michigan.
he negative environmental impacts touted by the environmental PACs are "old hat" boilerplate and have little standing, once one probes a bit further beyond the media hype.
Habitat impact is likely to be nil if the rule is lifted. Fragmentation, if it occurs, which it probably will not, will be inconsequential. The Michigan Roadless Areas are too small for that to be relevant. The notion of "fragmentation" is generally absurd in this framework, as current Michigan Roadless Areas are likely to remain untouched because they're "untouchable".
Fragmentation occurs far more frequently by those folks who buy little pieces of heaven and plant a house there. Not from forest management.
Often cited species of concern occur with equal or greater numbers across managed forestlands. Such species include wolves, bats, bear, moose, martens, lynx, and others. The landscape picture is similar for endangered and special plant species. These species, and most others, do better in managed forest landscapes, as long as the forest remains as forest.
In some cases, the additional woods roads are beneficial to wildlife, particularly wolves and bats.
Most Michigan wildlife species have healthy population trajectories, including many that were once endangered. The environmental laws of the 1960s and 1970s worked, for the most part. Current wildlife populations that are under stress have underlying causes rarely related to forests and forest management, including logging.
The sense of the wild, quiet, and solitude attributed to Wilderness Areas and Roadless Areas are far from restricted to these boxes on maps that have been enacted and labelled by Congress. This "spiritual" aesthetic can be easily experienced across much of Michigan's 20 million acres of forestland. To suggest these attributes occur only on designated lands is disinformation.
Is there an increased risk of wildfire if the Michigan Roadless Areas become undesignated? No. Withdrawal from the program is unlikely to increase usership or promote road building. Even if roads are built, they will be forest roads, not the paved highways the environmental PACs might have one believe. In the Norwich Plains, those old roads are already there.
As an outdoor enthusiast (backpacker, paddler, day-hiker), I have no trouble finding "solace" among the forests and rivers of the U.P. I've walked most of the long trails and paddled many of the rivers. Conversely, I tend to shun "designated" areas simply because there are too many people that visit them. Ironic, isn't it?
With all the challenges facing Michigan forests, one would think focusing on the major issues would be more important.