Roadless rule to be possibly rescinded. What does it mean for the wheeling community?

Jody Treadway

Jody Treadway

I'm the big spoon
Moderator
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Location
Hendersonville, NC
blueribboncoalition.org

USDA Roadless Rule Draft EIS Comment Period: Support Reopening 44.7M Acres Here - BlueRibbon Coalition

The USDA has opened the public comment period on rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule, a chance to hand management of 44.7 million acres of national forest back to local foresters. BRC is urging riders, hunters, and anyone tired of watching forests burn to weigh in. Add your comment before the...
blueribboncoalition.org blueribboncoalition.org

I'm genuinely curious what this may mean for the wheeling community. In the hiking/biking world, user groups are fully against it saying it'll open up forests to logging, damaging motorized use, destroy existing trail systems, etc.
Lot's of hyperbole IMO.
I'm a hiker, mountain biker and multiple times a week Pisgah NF and Dupont State Rec Forest user. But I am also a wheeler who wants public lands open to ALL users. Not just the ones those user groups support.
With that being said, what could this mean for us? More open FS roads, trails and access?
 
I'm 100% with you on public lands being accessible to all not just a select few. I would love to see more forest roads open to us. Even the dirt tracks they use often. Hell I'm even ok with a tag stipulation. But the reality is that most of these places are run by the greenies that hate us. So they will use whatever loop hole they can find. As someone who can't hike and ride I've often wondered it the ADA could be used to get vehicle access to the forest they deny us access too. But that is a different topic.
 
I did some in depth 2026 level research on this, I read a description of a snail trail podcast episode, and is this tied to the permit rule thats proposed? Basically you need a permit to do anything in a national forest including wheeling? Like I said I did some in depth research :laughing:
 
The main thing I have taken from it is it gives authority back to the state FS to do whatever as opposed to the fed gov.
Seems like the best approach to me.
I have read that more roads would allow better access to fires and to manage the land prior to wildfires.
It's not like the state FS is gonna start clear cutting Mt Mitchell and building Tellico type trails in Linville
 
If the Roadless Rule is rescinded and is used properly, it can protect our resources. And I say our as a whole as someone whose hobbies revolve around the outdoors. However I would strongly urge much of this to fall back to the state level for more local oversight like the article states for Colorado and Idaho. Without that state level policing of policy and permitting, its going to be a dumpster fire. It will at least be a little less of a dumpster fire with local bureaucrats because they have to see their constituents on a more regular basis and take the blowback rather than hide in DC.

In 2020 I hunted a unit in Wyoming that had seen a tornado blow through and wreck a couple hundred acres of timber, hop a ridgeline and do the same about a half mile away. Where there was an access road, they were logging out the downed timber to prevent fuel from accumulating. The other spot it went with no roads had deadfall still laying, now dried and rotting in 2025 when we went through on snowmobiles. Unburnt fuel just waiting for a spark. At that same time in 2020, we could stand on a ridgeline and see the glow of the Mullen Fire that burned almost 200k acres in Wyoming and Colorado. That fire burned from September to January. On the western and southern ends of that fire are wilderness areas bordered by private land. Without infrastructure in place, USFS and wildland crews were having to access the fireline through private ranches and lands with existing roadways. While there are a lot of hypothetical situations on how to handle that situation, a few more roads sure would have made accessing the fire easier.

On the flip side, selfishly I want more remote lands and fewer lazy road hunters accessing those lands.
 
StretchASU said:
If the Roadless Rule is rescinded and is used properly, it can protect our resources. And I say our as a whole as someone whose hobbies revolve around the outdoors. However I would strongly urge much of this to fall back to the state level for more local oversight like the article states for Colorado and Idaho. Without that state level policing of policy and permitting, its going to be a dumpster fire. It will at least be a little less of a dumpster fire with local bureaucrats because they have to see their constituents on a more regular basis and take the blowback rather than hide in DC.

In 2020 I hunted a unit in Wyoming that had seen a tornado blow through and wreck a couple hundred acres of timber, hop a ridgeline and do the same about a half mile away. Where there was an access road, they were logging out the downed timber to prevent fuel from accumulating. The other spot it went with no roads had deadfall still laying, now dried and rotting in 2025 when we went through on snowmobiles. Unburnt fuel just waiting for a spark. At that same time in 2020, we could stand on a ridgeline and see the glow of the Mullen Fire that burned almost 200k acres in Wyoming and Colorado. That fire burned from September to January. On the western and southern ends of that fire are wilderness areas bordered by private land. Without infrastructure in place, USFS and wildland crews were having to access the fireline through private ranches and lands with existing roadways. While there are a lot of hypothetical situations on how to handle that situation, a few more roads sure would have made accessing the fire easier.

On the flip side, selfishly I want more remote lands and fewer lazy road hunters accessing those lands.
Click to expand...
Can't really give the states control of USFS land. Technically those lands are not even part of the states they land in - they are legally federal land - much like Native American reservations.

I largely agree with the majority of the rest of your point. Giving the USFS control of the lands will reduce wildfire as they will begin controlled prescribed burns. Thereby reducing the fuel load and coarse woody debris while it is still controllable.
 
TJody said:
Is too early to start a petition to reopen Telico
Click to expand...
While I love your thoughts that will never happen. There are powers that be in that area that do not want us there no matter what $$$ we bring. They believe IMHO the rich trout fishermen will build cabins on their land. Just my .02
 
Ron said:
Can't really give the states control of USFS land. Technically those lands are not even part of the states they land in - they are legally federal land - much like Native American reservations.

I largely agree with the majority of the rest of your point. Giving the USFS control of the lands will reduce wildfire as they will begin controlled prescribed burns. Thereby reducing the fuel load and coarse woody debris while it is still controllable.
Click to expand...

Yeah I should have been more specific but working with local forestry professionals on management vs writing overarching policy from time zones away. Not necessarily giving complete control to the state.
 
ghost said:
While I love your thoughts that will never happen. There are powers that be in that area that do not want us there no matter what $$$ we bring. They believe IMHO the rich trout fishermen will build cabins on their land. Just my .02
Click to expand...
The problem we as a hobby face - is a quite inconvenient one.

We can not in good faith and with good data say that our recreation use doesnt create the most impact of any form of recreation. There is no sound argument to be made that driving vehicle through the woods and desert doesnt cause impact. Go back to Tellico, that was the ultimate nail thy hung us with. The fact that the other side lied and grossly (500x) exaggerated the turbidity and sedimentation impacts was boiled down to - but yeah you admitted you caused "damage".

And I am completely torn here. I love offroading. I love the friendships, the memories and experiences it has afforded me. If I am being intellectually honest however, even though I dont like it, I cant make a good faith argument that OHV use fits in any way with the stated mission of the USFS or the Parks Service. I personally think wheeling as most of us know and love it belong on private land. I believe some mid position of unimproved roads being open and available to vehicular travel, that those vehicles should be road worthy and tagged and registered, as these are and should be unimproved roads not challenge trails, within the FS is the bets possible case we can realistically hope for. And every time someone throws their beer cans out the windows, intentionally spins tires or otherwise intentionally causes any more impact than necessary - I think they push us closer and closer to the inevitable end.
 
Ron said:
The problem we as a hobby face - is a quite inconvenient one.

We can not in good faith and with good data say that our recreation use doesnt create the most impact of any form of recreation. There is no sound argument to be made that driving vehicle through the woods and desert doesnt cause impact. Go back to Tellico, that was the ultimate nail thy hung us with. The fact that the other side lied and grossly (500x) exaggerated the turbidity and sedimentation impacts was boiled down to - but yeah you admitted you caused "damage".

And I am completely torn here. I love offroading. I love the friendships, the memories and experiences it has afforded me. If I am being intellectually honest however, even though I dont like it, I cant make a good faith argument that OHV use fits in any way with the stated mission of the USFS or the Parks Service. I personally think wheeling as most of us know and love it belong on private land. I believe some mid position of unimproved roads being open and available to vehicular travel, that those vehicles should be road worthy and tagged and registered, as these are and should be unimproved roads not challenge trails, within the FS is the bets possible case we can realistically hope for. And every time someone throws their beer cans out the windows, intentionally spins tires or otherwise intentionally causes any more impact than necessary - I think they push us closer and closer to the inevitable end.
Click to expand...
I have the same views, love the hobby but good points.
 
Jody Treadway said:
The main thing I have taken from it is it gives authority back to the state FS to do whatever as opposed to the fed gov.
Seems like the best approach to me.
I have read that more roads would allow better access to fires and to manage the land prior to wildfires.
It's not like the state FS is gonna start clear cutting Mt Mitchell and building Tellico type trails in Linville
Click to expand...
All for states having more authority! Of course rock crawling trails probably won't be cut and open, but more fire roads is a step, if my tires are on dirt in the woods, im happy at least.
 
I agree opening Telico we all know is just wishful thinking. I really enjoy rock crawling but more than anything I enjoy a really good trail ride in one of my jeeps and meeting new people. Whether it's a forestry road or an old dirt path to no where. I remember going to Uwharrie back in the early 90s , I took a long break from off roading got back into it around 2015 went to Uwharrie and it was almost unrecognizable. I agree with @Ron that hard core wheeling should be on private land and return the National Forrest back to fire roads everyone can go out and enjoy without destroying it and everything around it .
 
Ron said:
The problem we as a hobby face - is a quite inconvenient one.

We can not in good faith and with good data say that our recreation use doesnt create the most impact of any form of recreation. There is no sound argument to be made that driving vehicle through the woods and desert doesnt cause impact. Go back to Tellico, that was the ultimate nail thy hung us with. The fact that the other side lied and grossly (500x) exaggerated the turbidity and sedimentation impacts was boiled down to - but yeah you admitted you caused "damage".

And I am completely torn here. I love offroading. I love the friendships, the memories and experiences it has afforded me. If I am being intellectually honest however, even though I dont like it, I cant make a good faith argument that OHV use fits in any way with the stated mission of the USFS or the Parks Service. I personally think wheeling as most of us know and love it belong on private land. I believe some mid position of unimproved roads being open and available to vehicular travel, that those vehicles should be road worthy and tagged and registered, as these are and should be unimproved roads not challenge trails, within the FS is the bets possible case we can realistically hope for. And every time someone throws their beer cans out the windows, intentionally spins tires or otherwise intentionally causes any more impact than necessary - I think they push us closer and closer to the inevitable end.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. The way forward is legit "wheeling" on private lands. At least here in the southeast.
I would like to see more accessible FS roads to explore on 4 wheels. That is my hope for this situation.
Lisa and I enjoy opening up OnX, wherever we happen to be, and finding some dirt to drive my F350 on. Here near home, there a few here and there. Many more in NE GA and SE TN. Those roads are FS roads used for maintaining and fire fighting that are also open for recreation.
 
Last edited:
Jody Treadway said:
Agreed 100%. The way forward is legit "wheeling" on private lands. At least here in the southeast.
I would like to see more accessible FS roads to explore on 4 wheels. That is my hope for this situation.
Lisa and I enjoy opening up OnX, wherever we happen to be, and finding some dirt to drive my F350 on. Here near home, there a few here and there. Many more in NE GA and SW TN. Those roads are FS roads used for maintaining and fire fighting that are also open for recreation.
Click to expand...
Agreed even something as tame a burrels ford and big bend in NW SC/GA...can make pretty scenic drives...without even requiring a locker. Just getting away a bit and hearing the quiet is worht a ton to me these days.
 
the roadless rule and removing it is a double edge sword and will always be such.

FS roads no matter if its fed or state are closed (gated) to reduce damage to the roads. Personally i dont think this will get them to open these roads, they still dont have the funding to maintain them which is why they were closed to start with.
I dont think there needs to be new "roads". dozers push fire lines all over the us those dont need to become roads. But i also see making access for logging and fires.

i sit on the fence because if everyone respected the ground it would be fine, but people are ass holes. I've seen it happen at max patch (people drove up onto the bald and did doughnuts) and anyone who has been down hurricane creek in the last couple years will tell you the same thing. that road has been "fixed" several times in the last couple years only for people to come and purposfully tear it back up.
 
Back
Top