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'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I’m writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not “off-limits” or “unproductive,” as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn’t just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Comment:
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover.
Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation.
I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 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 183 submissions in its group.