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 writing to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of our nation’s wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful industrial development. Getting rid of the rule would do long-lasting damage to these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas are some of the best of what our National Forests have to offer. They help provide clean drinking water to downstream communities, are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, the facts don’t back that claim up. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. Additionally, the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work and fight fires in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service has not been able to maintain the 370,000 miles of roads it already has—over twice the size of the U.S. Highway system. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can’t afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place as-is, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
Thanks,
Laura
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service’s proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of our nation’s wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful industrial development. Getting rid of the rule would do long-lasting damage to these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas are some of the best of what our National Forests have to offer. They help provide clean drinking water to downstream communities, are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, the facts don’t back that claim up. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. Additionally, the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work and fight fires in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service has not been able to maintain the 370,000 miles of roads it already has—over twice the size of the U.S. Highway system. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can’t afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place as-is, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
Thank you
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Rescinding the rule would harm these incredible public lands, outdoor recreation and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. To rescind the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that eliminating the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. Also, unmaintained roads with perched culverts can block passage of wild fish. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to oppose this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
While most of this content was drafted by another person, I have read it carefully and agree with each of the points detailed herein.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the communities that rely on them.
We have ample, available land in the rest of the great state of Georgia, land that is already available for redevelopment and that would help to redevelop Middle and South Georgia. We have a strong forestry industry in our state. We do not need to open pristine areas to serve logging industries while put the economic livelihoods of my hardworking Georgia neighbors at stake
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places. In doing so, you will also be helping those of us who live in Middle and South Georgia.
Yours sincerely,
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
MINDLESS MAGACULT MORONS WOULD SELL THEIR GRANDMOTHERS FOR A NICKLE. DON'T LET THEM SELL OUR GRANDKIDS, TOO!
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
With respect and appreciation,
Linda Goodiel
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
I am commenting to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service's proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule. For the last 25 years, the Roadless Rule has safeguarded some of Georgia's wildest forests from unnecessary roadbuilding and harmful development. Getting rid of the rule would harm these incredible public lands and the thousands of communities that rely on them.
Roadless areas provide measurable and immeasurable benefits. They contribute to clean drinking water to downstream communities, such as Chatsworth, Ellijay, Blairsville, and Hiawassee in north Georgia. Roadless areas are home to cold, crystal-clear trout fishing streams, boast world-class hiking and mountain biking trails, support local businesses, provide habitat for at-risk animal species, and offer unmatched experiences for visitors looking to get away from the noise and commotion of roads. Getting rid of the Roadless Rule puts all these incredible benefits at risk.
While the Forest Service has claimed that getting rid of the Roadless Rule will help prevent wildfires, this is not true. Wildfires are four times more likely to start near a road than in a roadless forest. And the Roadless Rule already allows the Forest Service to do wildfire prevention work in roadless areas.
In addition, the Forest Service cannot maintain the roads it already has. Roads are expensive to build and maintain, as shown by the agency's current $9 billion road maintenance backlog. Unmaintained roads can lead to landslides and lower water quality, which threatens the health of entire ecosystems. The agency can't afford what it has and should not worsen the situation by adding more roads, especially in these spectacularly wild places.
I strongly urge you to scrap this reckless proposal and to keep the Roadless Rule in place, so that future generations of hikers, anglers, mountain bikers, hunters, climbers, birders, and paddlers can enjoy these amazing roadless places.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 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 845 submissions in its group.