The Public Record · Docket FS-2025-0001

Read the comments.

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.

1 unique comments34 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

A1 strong 0
A2 moderate 0
A3 weak 0
A0 none 1

Substance /24

Median 5middle half 5–5 · 1 scored

Topics raised

34 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–20Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-608301
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place. Contact Information Lauren Felicione
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-573932
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I OPPOSE the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Currently, this rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are homes to the wildlife that live in them, They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-556259
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. We simply cannot continue to encroach upon wilderness that is critical habitat for wildlife. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-532782
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place. Thank you. Sincerely, Andrew Lincoln
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-533712
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place. THANK YOU!
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-534039
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place. Thank you. G. Paxton
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-535411
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I am writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place. I believe we should be protecting our wild lands. Thank you for considering my comments.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-535820
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-536590
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge you to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-541018
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. Based on the above I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-457036
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to stand up to this administration that is hell-bent on destroying anything good and beautiful and withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 17, 2026FS-2025-0001-440663
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
Dear Forest Service – I'm writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development, and protects habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal asserts. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat. Building Roads into previously roadless areas open the door to poaching, which is a problem in my area next to the Pikes Peak National Forest, along with related illegal activities such as bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for over a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place and not succumb to the negative political pressure of this moment but rise to the ideals that originally created our vast roadless spaces. Thanks for the consideration, Mike
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 16, 2026FS-2025-0001-416148
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
Keep it clean, intact and wild! I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-403431
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on these roadless areas to survive and recover their populations. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. It also makes these areas more susceptible to wildfires and other environmentally damaging occurences. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal. The Roadless Rule should be kept fully in place. Please preserve its current status.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 15, 2026FS-2025-0001-415012
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing, in addition to the logging of legacy forests critical to carbon sequestration, water source preservation, and wildfire prevention. These last remaining truly wild American ecosystems have been safe for a generation. Keeping them that way is one of the best things we can do to ensure that subsequent generations are ensured quality of life. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this short-sighted, rapacious, profit-driven proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353233
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 34 submissions in its group.
As a wildlife biologist and citizen, I strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. It is imperative that the Forest Service withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353441
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I am a passionate environmentalist and also a practical citizen. I grew up in urban Los Angeles, nowhere near anything called wilderness. But as I grew older I began to appreciate wild areas, not only for their beauty but also for all the wildlife that called it home. I also realize that we need to balance saving wild places for the species that live there with the ability to protect the habitat through selective forestry maintenance. This does not mean total unfettered access to the places protected under the Roadless Rule for unnecessary and unmanaged resource extraction (logging, hunting). I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353564
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. With today’s higher demands for water, and areas suffering even more from higher temperatures, we cannot afford to lose even one more tree or protected area. Water supplies are already drying up resulting in less for States, lower in the river chains. Rivers such as the Colorado and the Rio Grande are getting lower and lower and the vital ecosystems and food production areas they provide for are struggling. I beg the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353578
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I strongly oppose the proposed gutting of the roadless rule. As a strong supporter of the balance of nature, it is easy for me to see that roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. It's just not all about extracting money, no matter the cost. Wake Up!
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-353613
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 34 submissions in its group.
I'm writing to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. This rule protects 58.5 million acres of our National Forest System from road building, large-scale logging, and industrial development — habitat that wildlife, including wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores, depend on to survive and recover. Roadless areas are not "off-limits" or "unproductive," as this proposal claims. They are functioning ecosystems that protect clean drinking water, store carbon, and give wide-ranging species the connected, undisturbed habitat they need. Building roads into these areas doesn't just fragment that habitat — it opens the door to poaching, bear baiting, and unregulated predator killing in places that have been safe for a generation. I urge the Forest Service to withdraw this proposal and keep the Roadless Rule fully in place. Thank you for considering my opinion!
Full analysis of this comment →

Sharing & methodology

These results are meant to be shared.

Please cite us. This analysis is the intellectual property of Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser. You are welcome to reproduce it — every reproduction must include this citation:

Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser, “2001 Roadless Rule Revision — Substantive Analysis,” https://roadless.org.

How it works. A large language model (an open-weight Qwen3.8 model) reads each substantive comment and copies, word for word, the passages that carry its analytical gap, evidence, request, alternative and connection to the place; it returns no scores. Code grades those passages 0–3 on eight dimensions — evidence, legal grounding, engagement with the environmental analysis, analytical gaps, alternatives, specific requests, position, and local knowledge — with legal grounding taken from a citation scan, not the model. For the strongest tenth on each side, the copied passages are checked against the comment and shown as exhibits. A comment counts as “substantive” when it clears a floor filter — it must show at least one substantive signal (a named entity, a specific citation, a stated analytical deficiency, or first-person testimony), which screens out one-line and purely conclusory submissions before any model scoring.

The full method. Every step, why it is done that way, its known limits and a glossary: Methodologies →

The data. The full canonical dataset — every comment on Docket FS-2025-0001 — is available from Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov/bulkdownload.

Roadless.org — analysis of the public comment docket.
Media inquiries welcome — nicholas@wanderingnature.com.