Read the comments.

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing as an avid outdoorsman, hunter, and angler to register my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Stripping protections from tens of millions of acres of wild national forest land directly threatens our nation's finest backcountry habitats and the multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy. Our public lands are the backbone of our country's sporting heritage. My opposition to the rollback is rooted in five critical areas: Preserving Big Game Habitat: Road construction fragments critical wildlife migration corridors and pushes big game like elk and deer out of their native ranges. Intact, roadless acres keep wildlife populations healthy and preserve the traditional spirit of the fair chase. Safeguarding Coldwater Fisheries: Dirt roads built for extraction cause heavy soil erosion, washing mud and debris into mountain streams. Leaving these areas roadless protects vital headwaters, keeping trout habitats cold, clean, and productive. Defending the Backcountry Experience: Millions of hikers, backpackers, and anglers access national forests specifically to seek solitude. Allowing new roads introduces motorized vehicle noise and heavy crowds, permanently ruining the primitive backcountry environment. Fiscal Responsibility for Taxpayers: The U.S. Forest Service already faces a massive $10.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog on its existing road network. It is fiscally irresponsible to spend taxpayer dollars on new road construction when the agency cannot afford to maintain the roads it already manages. Mitigating Wildfire Risk: Proponents argue that roads allow better fire management, but forest science shows that the vast majority of human-caused wildfires ignite near roads. Paving new pathways into remote terrain actually increases the risk of accidental ignitions. Decades of public feedback show that the vast majority of Americans want these backcountry spaces left in public hands, undeveloped and unfragmented. I urge the USDA and the Forest Service to abandon this rescission and maintain the historic protections of the Roadless Rule for future generations of outdoor enthusiasts. Sincerely, Bobby Hatfield Litchfield Park, AZ, 85340

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing as an avid outdoorsman, hunter, and angler to register my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Stripping protections from tens of millions of acres of wild national forest land directly threatens our nation's finest backcountry habitats and the multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy. Our public lands are the backbone of our country's sporting heritage. My opposition to the rollback is rooted in five critical areas: •Preserving Big Game Habitat: Road construction fragments critical wildlife migration corridors and pushes big game like elk and deer out of their native ranges. Intact, roadless acres keep wildlife populations healthy and preserve the traditional spirit of the fair chase. •Safeguarding Coldwater Fisheries: Dirt roads built for extraction cause heavy soil erosion, washing mud and debris into mountain streams. Leaving these areas roadless protects vital headwaters, keeping trout habitats cold, clean, and productive. •Defending the Backcountry Experience: Millions of hikers, backpackers, and anglers access national forests specifically to seek solitude. Allowing new roads introduces motorized vehicle noise and heavy crowds, permanently ruining the primitive backcountry environment. •Fiscal Responsibility for Taxpayers: The U.S. Forest Service already faces a massive $10.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog on its existing road network. It is fiscally irresponsible to spend taxpayer dollars on new road construction when the agency cannot afford to maintain the roads it already manages. •Mitigating Wildfire Risk: Proponents argue that roads allow better fire management, but forest science shows that the vast majority of human-caused wildfires ignite near roads. Paving new pathways into remote terrain actually increases the risk of accidental ignitions. Decades of public feedback show that the vast majority of Americans want these backcountry spaces left in public hands, undeveloped and unfragmented. I urge the USDA and the Forest Service to abandon this rescission and maintain the historic protections of the Roadless Rule for future generations of outdoor enthusiasts. Sincerely, Brad Smith Cave Creek, AZ 85331 brad.smith@my.wheaton.edu

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing as an avid outdoorsman, hunter, and angler to register my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Stripping protections from tens of millions of acres of wild national forest land directly threatens our nation's finest backcountry habitats and the multi-billion-dollar outdoor recreation economy. Our public lands are the backbone of our country's sporting heritage. My opposition to the rollback is rooted in five critical areas: •Preserving Big Game Habitat: Road construction fragments critical wildlife migration corridors and pushes big game like elk and deer out of their native ranges. Intact, roadless acres keep wildlife populations healthy and preserve the traditional spirit of the fair chase. •Safeguarding Coldwater Fisheries: Dirt roads built for extraction cause heavy soil erosion, washing mud and debris into mountain streams. Leaving these areas roadless protects vital headwaters, keeping trout habitats cold, clean, and productive. •Defending the Backcountry Experience: Millions of hikers, backpackers, and anglers access national forests specifically to seek solitude. Allowing new roads introduces motorized vehicle noise and heavy crowds, permanently ruining the primitive backcountry environment. •Fiscal Responsibility for Taxpayers: The U.S. Forest Service already faces a massive $10.8 billion deferred maintenance backlog on its existing road network. It is fiscally irresponsible to spend taxpayer dollars on new road construction when the agency cannot afford to maintain the roads it already manages. •Mitigating Wildfire Risk: Proponents argue that roads allow better fire management, but forest science shows that the vast majority of human-caused wildfires ignite near roads. Paving new pathways into remote terrain actually increases the risk of accidental ignitions. Decades of public feedback show that the vast majority of Americans want these backcountry spaces left in public hands, undeveloped and unfragmented. I urge the USDA and the Forest Service to abandon this rescission and maintain the historic protections of the Roadless Rule for future generations of outdoor enthusiasts. Sincerely, Brad Smith Cave Creek, AZ 85331 brad.smith@my.wheaton.edu