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 comments13 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 2middle half 2–2 · 1 scored

Topics raised

13 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–13Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-342973
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am a trail user who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. We are inhabitants of the landscape and we are not the only organisms which benefit from this land. We must respect the nature and others who benefit from it. These areas are protected for a reason and we must minimize our harm. Building roads in these national forests would cause more harm than good. Do the right thing. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-343037
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am a trail user and wilderness trail worker, who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales, which generated $200 million in the 2025 fiscal year. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. The existence of wilderness is not something we can regain once it is lost. The fact that it exist is what makes it valuable. It provides a "other" space, it admits the world dosent exist to serve us. Protection of roadless wilderness honors and shelters the land form our own doom. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-355925
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am a trail user and volunteer area manager who works with BLM and who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 12, 2026FS-2025-0001-358298
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am a trail user who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I am an outdoor enthusiast who uses our wild forest areas and I don't want to see them ruined and opened up to logging. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. John Higgins
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-313917
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am a trail user who cares deeply about our national forests. So much so take volunteers out on trails to help with stewardship and make them better for the next user. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-306586
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am a trail user who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. The Roadless Rule has been in place for 25 years - I do not understand why something so valued by we citizens is now being taken away by corporate desires! Please listen to We the People, not Big Business - do not rescind the Roadless Rule. Oregon prioritizes protecting our invaluable outdoor spaces - my town on the Oregon coast thrives on recreation and tourism, and we are buying our watershed which has been threatened by poor stewardship from the timber industry. Leave the Roadless Rule be!
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-306965
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am the owner of a small tour company focused on the Pacific Northwest region. I am also a wildland firefighter. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule!!!
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-298729
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am not only a trail user, but I work in trail construction and maintenance. I have supported backcountry field operations, contributed to trail safety across hundreds of miles of USFS lands, and know this industry. I 100% support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Those trails are not just trails, these remote areas are markers of critical habitat for endangered species. I've witnessed these species only off trail, away from roads, and in these remote settings. Once we begin to encroach on their spaces, we may never restore their habitat. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Sep 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-300349
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am a trail worker and user who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Our public lands and the preservation of these wild places is a truly bipartisan issue. Voters from all parties overwhelmingly support the ongoing protection of these places not just for hiking, but for hunting, wildlife habitat preservation, clean drinking water, and so much more. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures and since it is part of my job to maintain these trails, I must adamantly demand that you do not rescind the Roadless Rule. My job depends on it, and it literally contributes to the health of our nation. Thank you for standing up for our public lands.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-279541
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 13 submissions in its group.
I am a trail user and recreation professional who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule. I fear what removing these protections will do not only for these pristine areas but how rescinding the Roadless Rule would create more opportunities for threatening wildfire which would put an even greater strain on limited and already overextended resources. Sincerely, Chelsea Taylor Portland, OR 97206 taylor.chelsea.n@gmail.com
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-284468
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am a Forest Service Volunteer and equine rider who cares deeply about our national forests. I do hunderds volunteer hours every year to keep our ability to recreate on our public lands. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-284495
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
Administrators, I am a trail runner, hiker and backcountry skier who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Aug 28, 2026FS-2025-0001-285065
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 13 submissions in its group.
I am an avid hiker who cares deeply about our national forests. I support the Roadless Rule and Alternative 1 - No Action in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would continue current management under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Rule is extremely important to the outdoor recreation community and to our economy. Nationally, the outdoor recreation economy generates $730 billion annually, far more than timber sales. Our forests already have too many roads; for example, Oregon's Siuslaw Forest. The current proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule would remove protections on more than 25,000 miles of trails nationally. Road construction in Inventoried Roadless Areas will damage watersheds, fragment landscapes, and risk increasing the number of wildland fires. Our USFS trails currently protected by Roadless Areas are national treasures. Please do not rescind the Roadless Rule.
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.