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.
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Dalton Blose
Pennsylvania
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Theresa Stathatos
New Jersey
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Sarah Ciarrachi
Arizona
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Heather Stockton
Arizona
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Emma Bevevino
Utah
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Miranda Perrone
California
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Matt Belus
Az
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Kim Rutkowski
Georgia
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Kim Rutkowski
Georgia
I object to the repeal of the Roadless Rule and write to express my strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This rule is vital to the preservation of our forests, Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, it is conservative, it is responsive to local and national needs, and most importantly, it is working.
Rescinding the roadless rule will notprevent wildfire. In fact, more roads mean more human-caused wildfires. Ninety percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
You can not erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. Rescinding the Roadless Area Conservation Rule would be catasrophic for our forests. The only choice is the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Roberta Tracy
Vermont
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Roberta Tracy
Vermont
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Barbara Metzger
Arizona
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Rachel Vanderpool
Oregon
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Foster
Flagstaff, Arizona
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Ms. Sharon A Bonini
Arizona
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Brad K Esser
California
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Nancy Iovanni
MAssachusetts
Nancy Iovanni
Massachusetts
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Lena Hansdotter
Ystad , Sweden
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Randy botts
Az
I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working.
Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas.
Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb.
I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather.
Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone.
I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative.
Sincerely,
Paige Whitton
Arizona
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 1,156 submissions in its group.