Trending
The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule was controversial a quarter-century ago, and it appears it remains so today. Environmental advocacy groups 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.
Most of the Roadless Area -- a federal designation -- lies in a handful of western states. Michigan has only 16,000 acres of designated Roadless Area. For the most part, nobody in their right mind would venture into most of it, as more than half is practically an impenetrable swamp.
Consider the Delirium Unit in the eastern Hiawatha National Forest -- Uffda. It's called that for a reason not related to joyful bliss. Similarly, the Bear Swamp area on the Manistee National Forest is a swamp. Difficult to slog through. The Norwich Plains, in the Ottawa National Forest, does have some potential for timber and recreation, but also contains considerable "low-quality" real estate. Government Island in the Les Cheneaux chain is rather attractive, but will remain roadless with or without any special designation, due to inaccessibility.
The Roadless Rule was enacted largely for western states, and the discussion is of concern mostly to them. 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.
Because these parcels consist mostly of non-commercial lands, changes to federal management designations are unlikely to alter what actually happens on the ground. The notion that lifting the rule will cause widespread habitat fragmentation in Michigan is unfeasible. These areas are likely to remain untouched simply because they are operationally untouched.
Fragmentation occurs far more frequently by those folks who buy little pieces of heaven and plant a house there. Not from forest management.
Furthermore, cited species of concern occur with equal or greater numbers across managed forestlands. Such species include wolves, bats, bears, moose, martens, lynx, and others. The landscape picture is similar for endangered and special plant species. These species do better in managed forest landscapes and can even benefit from woods roads, as long as the forest remains as forest.
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. 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 misleading.
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.
This guest opinion is a direct counterpoint to the roadless rule op-ed featured on this page on Sept. 26. Bill Cook is a retired MSU Extension Forester/Biologist and outdoor enthusiast in the Upper Peninsula.