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 comments23 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 7middle half 7–7 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584777
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-586733
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I care very much about Wyoming and its Wide Open Spaces. I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-471768
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
PLEASE KEEP THE ROADLESS RULE!! WE NEED TO PROTECT WHAT IS LEFT OF WILDLIFE HABITAT!! As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-469794
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. *Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. *Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Further, Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. Wyomingites and other outdoor lovers were outraged by plans to sell large swaths of public land in 2025. Please take heed of what the public is clearly conveying: Stop efforts to gut our public lands for profit. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 21, 2026FS-2025-0001-452417
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I am a fourth generation Wyomingite whose family loves and relies on public lands to continue a long tradition of connecting deeply to wild places. As such, I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: *Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. *Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. *Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Further, Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. Wyomingites and other outdoor lovers were outraged by plans to sell large swaths of public land in 2025. Please take heed of what the public is clearly conveying: Stop efforts to gut our public lands for profit. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-352591
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As a lifelong Wyoming resident and someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-355111
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I, Alexis Casal, live bordering Bridger Teton National Forest on three sides and recreate on Munger Mountain almost every week. To say I care about our roadless forests in Wyoming is an understatement. I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule. Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-324822
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative. As someone who enjoys access to wilderness in every state I travel to, the roadless rule allows me to explore and connect with the world and what America truly is.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 31, 2026FS-2025-0001-288462
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
It all started with a family trip to the Grand Tetons in 1967. We fell in love with the area because of it's majestic mountains but also because of all the protected areas that allowed native flora and fauna to continue as they had for eons. As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. Please, please, please keep this statue as is so that future generations can enjoy the landscape as I did as a child 6 decades ago.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 29, 2026FS-2025-0001-285515
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming and beyond , I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. Most roadless areas left today help reduce the spread of invasive species and most likely cannot even support roads because of terrain roughness. The roadless rule is an important attribute of an independent, self sufficient society. It is one great thing left in this nation. The Supreme Court routinely has favored local and state governments to decide what is best for their natural resources and community. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-284338
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule for several reasons. Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. Please keep our wild places wild and keep this rule in place.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 27, 2026FS-2025-0001-274565
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
KEEP IT WILD AS POSSIBLE PLEASE. As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 27, 2026FS-2025-0001-274731
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Protect our public lands! Ed Abbey didn’t die for this. As someone who cares about our roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 26, 2026FS-2025-0001-270785
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
I care deeply about being able to recreate in wilderness areas without roads. I have also built my career as an outdoor educator around wild places without roads. I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose removing the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 26, 2026FS-2025-0001-270794
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for Wild Horses, elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 26, 2026FS-2025-0001-271072
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative. Our forests are the legacy we gift to the next generations.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-270347
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 23 submissions in its group.
When I was a young boy, my parents would take our family hiking and backpacking into the roadless areas of the national forest in central Washington. Even as a young boy, it was exhilarating to stand on a ridge or throw a line in a pond that was silent except for the wind and wildlife nearby. At 80 years old, I am still accessing the roadless areas of Wyoming, now with my sons and grandsons, for that same solitude and adventurous experience. As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: •Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. •Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. •Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. •Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. •Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. •The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-270376
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-270399
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 roadless rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic Wyoming species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 7/24Aug 25, 2026FS-2025-0001-270427
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 23 submissions in its group.
As someone who cares about our Roadless forests in Wyoming and Colorado, I urge the Forest Service to retain the 2001 Roadless Rule by adopting the “No Action” alternative. I strongly oppose rescinding the Roadless Rule because: Wyoming and Colorado’s roadless areas provide some of the best fish and wildlife habitat in the country, including core habitat for elk, mule deer, grizzly bear, and other iconic species. Roadless areas provide some of the best opportunities in the country for backcountry recreation. From fly fishing to camping to backcountry skiing — public lands users know the opportunities for both solitude and adventure often improve the further you get from roads. I have personally been able to experience these untouched lands when I go backpacking through these areas and keeping them intact is so important to me. Roads contribute to erosion, sedimentation, and contaminants flowing into waterways. More roadbuilding in roadless areas could impact aquatic habitat, putting our world-class trout fisheries at risk. Additionally, many Wyoming and Colorado communities depend on clean water from roadless areas. In an area that is already experiencing water insecurity, we have to protect these clean water sources. Rescinding the Roadless Rule is fiscally irresponsible: The USFS already services roughly 370,000 miles of roads, and maintenance is costly. The deferred maintenance cost the Forest Service faces already exceeds $10 billion. Removing Roadless Rule protections and adding roads will increase the already-massive maintenance backlog and likely increase the risk of wildfire ignitions. Research shows that fires are much more likely to occur where there are roads. The Roadless Rule was developed through years of public participation and has wide-reaching public support — 99% of the public support the rule. The Roadless Rule protects some of our nation’s most important forests and wild places. I strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule and urge the U.S. Forest Service to adopt the “No Action” alternative.
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's bulk download, the canonical source: https://www.regulations.gov/bulkdownload. Download the CSV directly (Regulations.gov keeps this link working until October 18, 2026): https://bulk-downloads.regulations.gov/mv4-z8fw-q5jx.csv.

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