A court decision in San Francisco seems to provide hope to stall Forest Service initiatives to open roadless areas to drilling in many national forest areas, including much in Colorado. Here is a link to one story:

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&artic le_path=/news/06/news060921_4.htm

This is a good thing & a bad thing.[&:]
We need to keep some places wild.
We also need to be energy/independent, when it come to oil & gas production. My fear is the President will make enoughpeople mad.Then we will have to supply our own oil & gas.

when it comes to oil, I believe GREED out trumps ANGER, probably like most things inlife so I think will be OK on that front.

However you are right that alternate sources of energy need to be found and I would much rather our resources be utilized for more renewable and enviro-friendly sources of energy then exploration and exploitation of public land

The sooner we can develop alternative energies the better.
I look forward tothe OPEC countries returning to herdingsheep andgoats.

Until the trasition is complete, I hope we will fully develop our own energy resources to soften the transition.
I feel the roadless area plan was a needless "land grab" laid onto of Clinton's already extensive Wilderness "heritage."

USFS, land of many uses.
Wilderness, land of NO uses.

Roadless areas.... too much likede facto wilderness.
....and we've got PLENTY wilderness here in Colorado already, silly 25 heart beat rule and the whole nine yards.

It seems like the provisions of the Clinton national lands roadless rules called for local determination whether to add roads or not (to develop or not). That seems fair to me: let locals collectively decide the development fate of these nationallands, excepting wilderness areas,in their state. It was also my understanding that Forest Service plans afoot in Colorado to develop energy resources on national lands (might be bureau of land management as well as national forest lands -- "commons" lands probably best captures the land in question) somehow constituted an end run around this provision for the locals to decide the fate of these lands. If this were a question of disposition of privately owned lands I would feel differently. If I'm in error about the general situation, and it wouldn't be the first time I have been in error, then I stand ready to change my view.