(Photo Illustration - MetroCreativeConnection - Editor's Notes by Christina Myer)

As we celebrate a long weekend meant to mark 250 years since the founders signed off on a document that included acknowledgment of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it’s important we remember how much responsibility we bear because of all that freedom.

A former co-worker drew my attention this week to an instance in the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that reminded me some politicians aren’t quite clear on where their responsibilities lie.

U.S. Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va., is a member of that committee, by the way. His family’s Bluestone Industries Inc. includes timber and land development operations. Bear that in mind.

According to a report by Oregon Public Broadcasting, the committee voted along party lines (all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed) to attach a repeal of the “roadless rule” to the Wildfire Prevention Act. The addition was proposed by U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who is also chairman of the committee.

Since 2001, the roadless rule has kept new road construction and intensive logging from encroaching on nearly 60 million acres of federal forestland. Logging companies hate it.

Despite knowing the roadless rule does not prohibit federal agencies from taking measures to prevent the spread of wildfires such as prescribed burning and forest thinning (which also improve habitats for native species), timber associations insist the roadless rule actually has “catastrophic impacts to our lands, resources and people.”

Timber industry officials have their friends in Congress convinced new roads are needed to fight fires. But according to the OPB report, research, such as that by the Global Wildfire Collective, suggests more roads mean MORE fire hazard.

Alexandra Syphard, director of science for the collective, told OPB, “One of the most fundamental concepts in fire, especially in terms of fire geography, is that roads are the dominant place where you see ignitions.”

Researcher and author Greg Aplet, with The Wilderness Society, told OPB “The density of ignitions was up to four times higher within 50 meters of a road than it was in wilderness areas.”

There’s also the issue, of course, of who maintains any new roads built in such wild terrain. The federal government isn’t able to keep up with the obligations it already has.

Bizarrely, it seems as though those who voted to attach this nasty little wrecking ball to the Wildfire Prevention Act understood it would likely prevent passage of the much-needed larger measure.

The act — U.S. Senate Bill 140 — would establish “forest management requirements for federal lands, particularly with respect to reducing wildfires. For example, the bill establishes annual goals to increase (1) the number of acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land that are mechanically thinned (i.e., a management process related to the removal of trees and vegetation); and (2) the number of acres of Forest Service and BLM land treated by prescribed fire. By FY2029, the goals must be to increase the number of acres of each by at least 40% compared to the average number of acres of each in FY2019-FY2023.

“The bill also directs the Forest Service and the BLM to (1) implement standardized procedures for tracking data relating to hazardous fuels reduction activities they carry out, and (2) develop a strategy to identify opportunities to use livestock grazing as a wildfire risk reduction tool on federal land. Additionally, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior must establish a deployment and test bed pilot program for wildfire prevention, detection, communication, and mitigation technologies.

“The bill mandates use of existing authorities for expedited environmental review for certain forest land at high risk from wildfire, insects, or disease.

“Finally, the bill provides local governments and Indian [Congress’s language, not mine] tribes the right to intervene in lawsuits concerning certain projects on federal land that (1) reduce risks posed by wildfire, insects, or disease; or (2) generate revenue from harvesting timber,” according to a summary on congress.gov.

And while wildfires rage — including a massive blaze in Lee’s Utah — this committee attached a measure to this bill that probably will keep conscientious lawmakers from voting to approve it.

What a shame. And what a very strange way to show voters you are incapable of seeing the forest without cutting down more trees.

Christina Myer is executive editor of The Parkersburg News and Sentinel. She can be reached via e-mail at cmyer@newsandsentinel.com.