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.
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Missoula, Montana, and am fortunate to have spent much of my professional life as a wilderness river guide across the western U.S. My livelihood has depended in large part on the landscapes protected by the 2001 Roadless Rule, and I am writing to urge you not to rescind the Rule's protections. Specifically, I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Kind thanks for your time,
Elizabeth Tobey
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Our roadless lands are health to our animals and waterways. These lands need to be preserved and protected for future generations of humans and animals. So much has been taken and ruined from this planet. We must preserve what we have left.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect the areas and resources that it protects.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- we must maintain protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
Intact landscapes are rare, and one I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting and working in is the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest. Rescinding the roadless rule would put the boundary waters and the surrounding area at great risk of absolute degradation and destruction of what makes this landscape so special and pristine.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Please please save our public lands! We need the green spaces and they are constantly under threat-- as you well know! Once the forests are damaged or destroyed they may never be the same. Ellen Holtman 24153
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). Our nation's natural spaces are our national treasures and deserve to be protected and respected. I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation. Roads endanger these recreational activities by segmenting the land and disrupting the natural movement of wildlife that has been going on for centuries.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development.
The people are speaking up and asking our representatives to hear us. We want the proposed new rule withdrawn and to maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The United States doesn't need to exploit its most vulnerable and rich areas. We can still harvest sustainably while keeping the 2001 Roadless Rule intact. The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Thank you for your consideration,
M. Mack
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I am writing to say that I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule. It feels like there has been an attack on our most precious landscapes to benefit the wealthy few rather than show concern for the health of the many and the animals/plants/insects that are already struggling to maintain a healthy status quo in the world.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
To rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule) would be to throw away the heritage of all people living on this continent. I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Without our roadless rules, we will face ecosystem collapse and human health crisis as seen by the places that were once wild that we have allowed this kind of wanton development.
The extraction of resources for our convenience now is not worth the wellbeing of our descendants.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule. Leave some old growth forest for the future and all that lives in that ecosystem.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
I strongly oppose the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
For the sake of clean water for millions of Americans, please stop the U.S. Forest Service's proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 Roadless Rule). I urge you to maintain the 2001 Roadless Rule and to withdraw the current proposed rule.
Roadless areas are among our National Forest System's most important remaining intact landscapes. These landscapes support healthy headwaters and drinking-water sources, provide secure areas for elk, deer, and other big game species and conserve headwaters that sustain native trout and salmon populations and sustain high-quality opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and other forms of outdoor recreation.
The Roadless Rule provides an important national baseline for protecting these values from the fragmentation and degradation that can result from new roads and associated development. The Forest Service itself acknowledges that rescinding the rule could adversely affect water quality, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and other roadless values.
The Forest Service should address legitimate forest-management challenges--including wildfire risk and forest health--without eliminating durable protections for intact landscapes. The 2001 Roadless Rule already allows for hazardous fuel treatments and other forest management activities, including timber harvest, to improve forest health and to reduce wildfire risk. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would unnecessarily increase the risk of unnecessary road construction, habitat fragmentation and impacts to clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.
America's remaining roadless areas are a finite public resource -- I strongly support maintaining protection for these areas. The Forest Service should maintain and strengthen the Roadless Rule, rather than rescind it.
Please withdraw the proposed rule and maintain the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 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 180 submissions in its group.