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.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) tells us that dividing forests into smaller pieces with roads could cause increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads could make that even worse. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
As I type this comment in the sweltering 100+ degree heat of yet another record-breaking summer in Arizona, it's clear that no effort to mitigate the effects of climate change is too small. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would be an enormous step back. Carbon sinks that decrease the impact of the greenhouse effect are shrinking and disappearing as humans continue to develop our environment; the Roadless Rule protects old-growth forest and significant carbon storage. According to the Wilderness Society, wildfires are 4x more likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forests. Per the Sierra Club, roughly 90% of wildfires start within half a mile of a road.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Repealing the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it; wildfires are 4 times more likely to start near roads; roughly 90% of wildfires start within half a mile of a road. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads, endangering drinking water, wildlife habitat, and old growth forests which are a significant carbon sink, but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Please do not consider changing the rule around roadless areas. Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Repealing the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. We fought against this nonsense in the seventies and eighties for a good reason. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
The longstanding tradition of protecting and preserving wild spaces is one of the things that makes me proud to be an American. Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Not only is it a blatant attempt to accelerate resource extraction, it will cause increased human-wildlife conflict, accelerate species extinction through further habitat fragmentation, and limit recreation opportunities, repealing this rule will not even accomplish its listed goal, which is to assist in wildfire mitigation. In far, rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing.
The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. :( I and many others strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
I live in Utah and have long admired our national forests, wildernesses, and parks. Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will likely increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
As I type this comment in the 80+ degree heat of yet another record-breaking summer in the formerly-temperate climate of the central coast of California, it's clear that no effort to mitigate the effects of climate change is too small. Rescinding the Roadless Rule would be an enormous step back. Carbon sinks that decrease the impact of the greenhouse effect are shrinking and disappearing as humans continue to develop our environment; the Roadless Rule protects old-growth forest and significant carbon storage. According to the Wilderness Society, wildfires are 4x more likely to start in roaded areas than in roadless forests. Per the Sierra Club, roughly 90% of wildfires start within half a mile of a road.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities.
There are currently two wildfires burning within 50 miles of my city, displacing families and destroying infrastructure. Most of these California fires are caused by careless people going out into the wilderness and camping irresponsibly. Allowing people to access even more forested lands only increases the risk of fire. We need to do everything in our power to keep our forests from burning, both for the climate and for everyone's safety. Also, insurance companies won't insure houses because of the high fire risk in this area. Even when there are no fires occuring, the fire risk negatively affects everyone. I have had to accept an out of state insurance provider to have any coverage of my home at all. A provable increase in the local fire risk (such as would happen if this rule is repealed) would only worsen the situation. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Please protect the Earth.
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 18 submissions in its group.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
I am a student of Environmental Sciences, and I do not support this decision. Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Do not end the Roadless Rule! Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider. All Americans deserve preserved wilderness, clean air, and a green future.
Repealing the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. It will not reduce the risk of wildfires, it will increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Donald Trump does not want to repeal the roadless rule for the good of the people. He doesn't want anything for the good of anyone who doesn't directly benefit himself. He has shown this repeatedly, and this term, his receipts have been right out in the open for the public to see.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. Furthermore, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk.
Not only would our beautiful national parks, a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads--they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
This succinctly covers my opinion on the topic.
Going through with this decision to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule will cause immense harm to our country. Rather than reduce the risk of wildfires, it will only increase it. A recent study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53460-6) concludes that fragmenting or dividing forests into smaller areas via roads could actually directly result in an increased likelihood of extreme wildfires. What’s more, 13% of roadless land currently protected experienced wildfires of high or moderate severity between 1984 and 2024 as per the Trump administration’s Federal Register filing. The construction of roads would further exacerbate this risk. Not only would our beautiful forests, which are a source of pride for many Americans, be marred by these potential roads but they would also become much more dangerous to surrounding communities. I strongly object to this measure to remove protections from our public lands and urge the Department to reconsider.
As an American citizen I am against this.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
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 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 18 submissions in its group.