PDA

View Full Version : CO Roadless Area Task Force Recommendations


Seldom Seen
08-09-2006, 09:38 PM
Colorado Roadless Areas Review Task Force Draft Recommendations:

Colorado Roadless Areas Review Task Force Petition Recommendations, DRAFT, August 9, 2006 (http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/3650_08_09_06Recommendations%20Draft%20Final-Posted.pdf)

As a result of the public comment and task force deliberative processes, the task force has developed draft recommendations. The task force is taking public comments on these draft recommendations for a brief period. Please use the link below to access the public comment form for commenting specifically on the draft recommendations. Public comments on the draft recommendations will be forwarded directly to the task force. This public comment period will close on Friday, August 25 at 5:00 p.m. MDT.

Public Comment Form - Draft Recommendations
The URL to the public comment form is:
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB225J4W96VJ9 (http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB225J4W96VJ9)

Red_Chili
08-10-2006, 07:51 AM
I'd be interested in your analysis, Brian. What's yer thoughts?

MDH33
08-10-2006, 08:28 AM
I'm somewhat confused by how the roadless rule is being interpreted so please don't go off on me for my ignorance. :) I was just reading an article about a lot of land in Colorado being put up for auction for oil and gas exploration. Most of the land being put up is in National Forests and BLM land that was previously protected from development by the Roadless Area Protection rule. It said the companies and the Department of the Interior are trying to push through the deal before anything has been decided regarding the roadless rule (and each states right to petition for its continued implementation). Wondering what everyones thoughts are on these two issues. Wouldn't repealing the roadless rule to allow for oil/gas exploration and logging actually make even more land unavailable for recreation vs. using the roadless rule to impede companies from leasing land and thus making it off-limits to the public? My understanding of the Roadless Rule was that it isn't intended to close off ares to all OHV use (like a wilderness area), rather it was intended to impede development (oil/gas, logging, resorts) and protect it for future public use, which includes OHV use if trails already exist. Just like any policy, I'm assuming it's being bent and misinterpreted, but like I said, I'm ignorant. ;) If someone has already explained this whole debacle in laymans terms on the forum, please direct me to it. Thanks!

Seldom Seen
08-10-2006, 01:52 PM
MARTIN, ignorant ?? HELL NO !!! I've been trying to get my head around this issue for the past year and I don't think I've seen a better summation yet!! :bowdown:

"Wouldn't repealing the roadless rule to allow for oil/gas exploration and logging actually make even more land unavailable for recreation vs. using the roadless rule to impede companies from leasing land and thus making it off-limits to the public? My understanding of the Roadless Rule was that it isn't intended to close off ares to all OHV use (like a wilderness area), rather it was intended to impede development (oil/gas, logging, resorts) and protect it for future public use, which includes OHV use if trails already exist."

That, my friend, is exactly what is stated in the purpose of the rule ( page FR3245)

One needs to look no further than Gillespie Gulch to see what will happen when new mineral leases are granted. With out some form of protection this WILL become the rule rather than the exception!! I recently learned that the same has happened in 2 areas of WRNF.

Fortunately Gov. Owens and the State Legislature, in creating the Task Force, realized the intent of the rule and decided not to "throw the baby out with the bath water." The Task Force received its marching orders to "use the [2001] Roadless Rule as a starting point and make recommendations on how best to modify it for Colorado"

Unfortunately, through this process, there have been a few groups working under the pretense of protecting our right to recreate who refuse to see the forest through the trees (pun intended :rolleyes: ).

Chili, I wanted to get the info up ASAP because the comment period is so short. I need to do a bit of research into 2 points before I post up.