Let's Think Carefully Before Scrapping the Roadless Rule

After decades fighting fires across the Black Hills of South Dakota and the Rocky Mountain, Northern Rockies and Great Basin regions, earning degrees in fire science and public safety administration, and graduating from the National Fire Academy's Executive Fire Officer Program, I've learned that wildfire management rarely offers simple solutions.

Which is why it matters that there is a proposal afoot to consider repealing the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule which conserves 58.5 million acres of our national forest Inventoried Roadless Areas. These areas harbor wildlife, provide clean drinking water for many communities, and offer unmatched recreational opportunities for the American public. I have spent my career responding to fires, hazmat calls, and medical emergencies, managing operations that handled over 18,000 calls annually. I understand why some believe more roads could improve fire response, but the issue requires more nuanced consideration.

What struck me was when the Roadless Rule was last considered for repeal, polling showed that 75% of Americans support the Roadless Rule, including two-thirds of Republicans and 77% of rural residents. In today's political climate, that level of agreement deserves our attention. It suggests people understand these forests belong to all of us, and major policy changes affecting them warrant careful deliberation.

The reality is that wildfire is a complex problem requiring complex solutions. Having fought fires across the West, I know firsthand that nearly 90% of wildfires are caused by humans. More roads mean more access points, more potential ignition sources, and statistically, more fires. We see this pattern on the ground year after year.

Local fire departments need flexibility, and I won't argue otherwise. We need better funding, smarter fuels management to reduce fire risk, stronger community preparedness programs, and active forest management where appropriate. The Roadless Rule is not a barrier to addressing these concerns.

Under the rule, forest managers can cut trees to reduce hazardous fuels, conduct prescribed burns, restore ecosystem health, and protect public safety. They can even construct roads when necessary for these specific purposes. What the rule prevents is routine road building that fragments landscapes without clear conservation or safety benefits and adds to the Forest Service's already staggering $6.4 billion road maintenance backlog.

Before making sweeping changes, we should ask hard questions. Which specific types of fires would repealing this rule prevent? Which communities would measurably be safer? What are the trade-offs in terms of increased ignition risk, maintenance costs, and impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat? These questions deserve evidence-based answers.

My career has taught me that effective solutions rarely come from throwing out entire frameworks. They come from thoughtful adjustments, from working within proven systems while addressing specific shortcomings. If there are particular aspects of the Roadless Rule that genuinely need improvement, let's identify and address those specifically rather than scrapping decades of policy.

Americans, across political and geographic boundaries, care deeply about what happens to these lands. That passion deserves respect in our decision-making. These are public lands, after all, and decisions about their future affect all of us.

Let's take the time to get this right. Our forests, our communities, and future generations deserve nothing less than our most thoughtful consideration of this complex issue.