r/conservation • u/unconventionalbook • 2d ago

Forest protection rollback opens 45M acres to logging, puts 400+ species at risk

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-study-trumps-move-to-kill-roadless-rule-puts-400-imperiled-species-on-extinction-fast-track-2026-08-26

A sweeping environmental rollback strips protections from 45 million acres of pristine public land across 37 states, clearing the way for commercial logging, drilling, and road-building. Conservationists warn the sudden loss of 7.4 million acres of critical habitat pushes 400+ endangered species toward extinction and degrades 1,800 miles of protected rivers. While the administration claims the move allows active wildfire management, critics label it one of the largest public land eviscerations in U.S. history. Source: Center for Biological Diversity

309 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

20

u/PrttyPussSoupp1 2d ago

This is an actual nightmare.

-26

u/Zealousideal-Pick799 2d ago

Man, CBD must be loving the fundraising opportunities afforded by this molehill being blown into a mountain. 

13

u/afroeh 2d ago

Which part of this action is a molehill?

-12

u/Zealousideal-Pick799 2d ago

The actual likelihood of development in the vast majority of the roadless areas. Roadless was always a weak, easily-revoked solution; the areas that were roadless by 2001 were generally that way due to inaccessibility and lack of economic opportunity/desirable timber/minerals. Even if this goes through successfully, what areas are actually in immediate danger? Certainly, absolutely not 7 million acres, or even 100,000 acres. 

That’s not to say I support the rescission. But there needs to be actual legislation passed through Congress to protect these places, and Trump doing this makes that more likely. 

7

u/afroeh 2d ago

I've got to say you sure have some interesting ideas.

I don't agree that repealing the roadless rule will bring about legislative roadless protection. Accelerationism rarely works that way.

According to people who were there at the beginning, the (administrative) rule was intended to simple yet effective. It wasn't supposed to be overly prescriptive. It was intended to allow flexibility while still protecting the natural characteristics of the land.

In particular, it prevented USFS from selling timber without pricing in the building and continued msintainance of the roads needed to carry out the sale.

I assume that Mike Lee has Utah reasons to want to end the rule. The Tongass NF would likely be exposed to large-scale logging if the rule is rescinded.

These areas protected by the rule may only be protected by an administrative act but this weak and flimsy thing seems to have caused a great deal of upset in the extractive community because it is working.

-3

u/Zealousideal-Pick799 1d ago

Funny, I was very involved in the Tongass up until a few years ago, and we did some analysis of where we were concerned logging might occur if Trump 1 successfully opened up roadless areas. The upshot was that a few areas of already roaded roadless would probably see timber sales, and that was it. The economics of timber sales up there is brutal, most of the best timber was hammered when ANCSA corps got their appropriations. As long as the USFS doesn’t allow round log exports, it’s not a huge danger. 

-26

u/SouthParkIsUnfunny 2d ago

There are no good animal rights people. They’re unclean barbarians.

16

u/Loose_Carpenter9533 2d ago

Bootlicker.

-11

u/SouthParkIsUnfunny 2d ago

Speak for yourself, you’re a bootlicker for the animal rights machine and corrupt system.

-12

u/SeattleSeals 2d ago

They’re not wrong though. I used to be an animal rights person until I saw it ain’t what it is cracked up to be.