CO: Rocky Mountain NWR Wildlife Drive addition to usanp

[the_spui_ninja]

Does anyone have any objection to including the Wildlife Drive at Rocky Mountain National Wildlife Refuge (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RMA%20Wildlife%20Drive%20and%20Trails%20WEB.pdf) in usanp?

Will be out in Denver again this summer and thought this looked kinda cool.

[bejacob]

It could be a bit of a slippery slope. I love visiting NWR locations, but there is definitely a difference from the National Parks. I'd probably have a hard time recalling all the NWR places I've enjoyed over the years.

For usanp, I'd suggest sticking to sites administered by the National Park Service and leave anything covered by the Fish & Wildlife Service out. Same goes for Forest Service roads.

You should still go, but the route doesn't belong in usanp (in my opinion).

[oscar]

There's lots of wildlife refuges out there, some of which have roads. Why this one? Why not propose a new system of wildlife refuge roads (maybe usawr)?

Not sure about "slippery slope", but maybe "mission creep"? Especially if wildlife refuge roads are typically as short as the Rocky Mountain refuge's, and not regularly used for through traffic and/or by regional travelers.

[Jim]

My first thoughts are similar.  This could be a group of roads worth adding, but not in usanp.  And if we're doing it, let's at least get some rough guidelines for what is to be included and make an effort to include all qualifying routes.

[the_spui_ninja]

It could be a bit of a slippery slope. I love visiting NWR locations, but there is definitely a difference from the National Parks. I'd probably have a hard time recalling all the NWR places I've enjoyed over the years.

For usanp, I'd suggest sticking to sites administered by the National Park Service and leave anything covered by the Fish & Wildlife Service out. Same goes for Forest Service roads.

You should still go, but the route doesn't belong in usanp (in my opinion).

Sounds fine to me!