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 asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule.
In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.
Thank you
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Deborah Nelson
Sincerely,
Ms. Deborah Nelson
I'm writing asking you not to refully or partially reading the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, John Cannon
Sincerely,
Mr. John Cannon
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Alison Lapoint
Sincerely,
Ms. Alison Lapoint
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Peter Arata
Sincerely,
Mr. Peter Arata
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Thelma Baxter
Sincerely,
Ms. Thelma Baxter
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, martin rall
Sincerely,
Mr. martin rall
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, frank blanton
Sincerely,
Mr. frank blanton
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, delphina martinez
Sincerely,
Ms. delphina martinez
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, tony watts
Sincerely,
Mr. tony watts
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Lynette Wuest
Sincerely,
Ms. Lynette Wuest
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Ronald Turner
Sincerely,
Mr. Ronald Turner
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Steven Seigel
Sincerely,
Mr. Steven Seigel
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, herbert bowman
Sincerely,
Mr. herbert bowman
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, billie sands
Sincerely,
Ms. billie sands
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Kerry Warrick
Sincerely,
Mr. Kerry Warrick
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, muriel mcpherson
Sincerely,
Ms. muriel mcpherson
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Dianna Clark
Sincerely,
Ms. Dianna Clark
Dear Special Areas: Roadless Area Conservation,
I'm writing asking you not to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. For more than two decades, this important policy has safeguarded 58 million acres of irreplaceable habitat for wildlife like elk and cold-water fish species, guaranteed fresh water to tens-of-millions of Americans, and protected Indigenous areas that provide subsistence hunting and gathering of food.The richness of our nation's ecosystems are a critical part of our national heritage and the Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that future generations will enjoy the iconic species of our nation's forests and grasslands. Nearly 450 threatened and endangered species depend on roadless areas for their survival. In addition, our national forest system provides drinking water to nearly 90% of the people served by public water systems in the West and provides the water to farmers in California and Arizona who grow 90% of the winter vegetables consumed in the United States. Roads increase sediment and runoff that destroy watersheds. The Roadless Rule also supports areas that are important for Indigenous ceremonies and food gathering. Tribal treaty rights must be centered and upheld in any revision of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In short, there is simply no reason for a repeal of this important conservation policy.Sincerely, Suzette Miller
Sincerely,
Ms. Suzette Miller
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 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 15,005 submissions in its group.