The Public Record · Docket FS-2025-0001

Read the comments.

Every public comment on the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, sorted by what it talks about. Pick a topic, then narrow by position, by how hard the comment is for the agency to set aside, or by how substantive it is. Each comment is shown in full, as filed. How comments are classified and scored is explained in the Comment Analysis.

1 unique comments11 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

A1 strong 0
A2 moderate 0
A3 weak 0
A0 none 1

Substance /24

Median 5middle half 5–5 · 1 scored

Topics raised

11 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–11Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-579399
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who frequently recreates in Wyoming's roadless forests, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-560666
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 24, 2026FS-2025-0001-479529
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-427510
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: - Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. - Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. - Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. - Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. - The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. - The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-326906
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-293598
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-283735
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 26, 2026FS-2025-0001-272290
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 26, 2026FS-2025-0001-272363
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 26, 2026FS-2025-0001-272762
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-270313
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 11 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →

Sharing & methodology

These results are meant to be shared.

Please cite us. This analysis is the intellectual property of Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser. You are welcome to reproduce it — every reproduction must include this citation:

Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser, “2001 Roadless Rule Revision — Substantive Analysis,” https://roadless.org.

How it works. A large language model (an open-weight Qwen3.8 model) reads each substantive comment and copies, word for word, the passages that carry its analytical gap, evidence, request, alternative and connection to the place; it returns no scores. Code grades those passages 0–3 on eight dimensions — evidence, legal grounding, engagement with the environmental analysis, analytical gaps, alternatives, specific requests, position, and local knowledge — with legal grounding taken from a citation scan, not the model. For the strongest tenth on each side, the copied passages are checked against the comment and shown as exhibits. A comment counts as “substantive” when it clears a floor filter — it must show at least one substantive signal (a named entity, a specific citation, a stated analytical deficiency, or first-person testimony), which screens out one-line and purely conclusory submissions before any model scoring.

The full method. Every step, why it is done that way, its known limits and a glossary: Methodologies →

The data. The full canonical dataset — every comment on Docket FS-2025-0001 — is available from Regulations.gov's bulk download, the canonical source: https://www.regulations.gov/bulkdownload. Download the CSV directly (Regulations.gov keeps this link working until October 18, 2026): https://bulk-downloads.regulations.gov/mv4-z8fw-q5jx.csv.

Roadless.org — analysis of the public comment docket.
Media inquiries welcome — nicholas@wanderingnature.com.