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 comments44 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

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-458970
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
Please, this is Important for our envirionment and our childeren and gernerations to come. I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Deanna Freeman, North Bend, WA, 98045
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-378076
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. It just seems ludicrous to me that this is even being discussed. In this day and age with all our brilliance as humans we know that putting in more roads will only make matters worse. Leaving places wild and untouched is something we as a country should be proud of. It’s the only way to even have a future. Please..please leave the Roadless rule in place. Sincerely, Washington state resident who’s afraid to put his name on this out of fear of people with opposing beliefs will track me down and harass me.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 14, 2026FS-2025-0001-401601
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserveI am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Heidi Guinn, Greenacres, WA 99016
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-348382
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am against the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Liann Sundquist
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-354440
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
Hello, As a longtime Washington State resident and hiker and user of public lands, I am very familiar with National Forest lands — they are unique wilderness, the kind of which people like me enjoy frequently and the kind of which is increasingly hard to find. I believe we should not further deplete and divide wilderness areas with roads, and I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Thank you.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-354794
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. Repealing this rule will cause irreparable damages and impact wildlife, ecosystems, conservationists, hunters, and Indigenous communities. The people of America do not want this change, which will open the door to extractive industries and irreversible exploitation of our publicly held lands. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Maia Pagán (Seattle WA)
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-358332
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I oppose the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should absolutely remain in place. These roadless landscapes provide continuous habitat corridors that wolverines, lynx, and other species depend on. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. Rolling back this rule would mean degrading habitat and diminishing water quality downstream. Undoing FS-2025-0001 would cause generations worth of damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, A. Shao Puyallup, WA
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-358958
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
Hello, I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-359201
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Sandra Woodall San Antonio, Texas 78212 Sincerely, [Fi
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-367378
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am very concerned about the proposal to take back protections for Roadless Areas. I urge you to NOT rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-370953
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. I've lived in Washington for forty years; I'm not a hunter, but I love hiking the backcountry and don't want to lose those opportunities. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Roman Stadtler Bellingham, WA 98225
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 8, 2026FS-2025-0001-338537
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. I have enjoyed hiking in several places protected by the roadless rule, and experienced profound joy, and numerous mental health benefits which would not be possible without the roadless rule protections. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Mari MacLane, Washington, 98040
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-316259
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
Hello, I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-316928
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. We don’t need more roads. We need more undisturbed natural areas. We need to respect and honor these areas and protect them in perpetuity.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-317855
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-317969
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
To The Forest Service: I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Having grown up in the PNW and hiked across WA for over 50 years I know well the value of healthy forests. Funds should go to help with existing roads that may be used for environmental sensitive forest health work and, separate and apart but still critical, roads that allow access to hiking trails and maintenance of those trails. Sincerely, Anne W Fox Mercer Island, WA 98040
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-318387
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I oppose the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-318404
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
Dear Sirs, I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and I strongly feel it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. Think about what we would be leaving our children! I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, a very concerned American
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-318800
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
Good day USFS, I am a lifetime lover of clean water, forests and wildlife. I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Edward KaneSnohomish, WA 98290
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-326719
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 44 submissions in its group.
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule [FS-2025-0001]. For nearly 25 years this rule has reliably protected backcountry habitat, clean headwaters, and quiet recreation areas from industrial road-building and commercial extraction, and it should remain in place. As someone who regularly hikes, camps, and enjoys the wildness of Washington's forests, I am disheartened and angered to see that this is even being considered. These roadless landscapes matter for practical reasons, not just scenic ones. They provide unbroken habitat corridors that wide-ranging species like wolverine and lynx depend on to move and persist. They protect the cold, clean headwaters that downstream communities and fisheries rely on. Washington alone holds more than 2 million roadless acres across the Cascades, Kettles, Selkirks, Olympics and Blue Mountains. These are landscapes that also support hunting, fishing, and other backcountry traditions. Rolling back this rule would mean more roads cut into fragile terrain, more fragmented and degraded habitat, and diminished water quality downstream. It would also raise fire risk rather than lower it: most wildfire ignitions are human-caused, and more roads into these areas means more opportunity for fire starts in these ecologically important lands. Meanwhile, the Forest Service is already unable to keep up with maintenance on the roads it has; adding thousands of new miles would only deepen that backlog. I drive Forest Service roads throughout the summer as I hike and camp in the forests. Many of these roads are in rough condition. I don't see how adding more roads will help here. Undoing this rule would do generational damage to our natural heritage and put at risk a conservation legacy that benefits all Americans. I urge you to conserve our nation’s roadless forests and keep the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in place. Sincerely, Samantha Sauer, Seattle, WA 98125 -- An avid hiker, camper, conservationist and lover of our wild lands
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.