Read the comments.

As a public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for current and future Americans across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule.

Dear President Trump: As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Michael Rietveld 1020 Business Park Dr Ste Ab Hailey, ID 83333-5237

As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. Practically, the Roadless rule allows us Missouri sports men and women to get the separation we seek without the possibility of encountering the noise that constantly surrounds our every day lives. There are pieces of the Mark Twain National forest qualified as roadless, where you will only encounter other users of the land that came with extreme intent. The intent behind enjoying roadless areas in the Mark Twain is what makes the enjoyment more beautiful.

As a hunter, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility.

As a hunter, angler, and outdoor enthusiast I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For two decades the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing management activities for healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitats for fish and wildlife, conserves clean water, and supports the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place.

Dear USDA United States Forest Service, As a civil engineer, hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. In my career as a consulting civil engineer, I have gladly assisted the USFS on a variety of infrastructure projects including road design, dam rehabilitation, stream crossings and more. Through these projects, I have seen the numerous challenges the USFS faces when maintaining their existing infrastructure including insufficient budget, personnel shortages, and limitations of the current contracting process. These shortfalls have, in some cases, been so significant that they jeopardize public health and safety on USFS lands. Recent DOGE-era budget cuts, USDA restructuring and federal workforce reductions have and will continue to exacerbate these shortfalls. Specifically, the USFS manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Diverting these resources is not only fiscally irresponsible but would also jeopardize the health and safety of the public who depend on these public lands. As an outdoorsman living in Southwest Montana, I spend my days off deliberately seeking out inventoried roadless areas for recreation, exercise, and solitude. I have spent my last three consecutive weekends hunting and camping in inventoried roadless areas which I hope to share with my children in the same roadless condition I get to experience them. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Sincerely, A concerned civil engineer, outdoorsman, public land owner, and admirer of wild places.

As a hunter and angler, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place.

As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule. Sincerely, Dr. Marcus Hook

I am commenting on docket FS-2025-0001. As a public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place.

As a Forester, a former USDA Forest Service employee, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I was working when the roadless areas were analzyed; more than once. You have it wrong when you state the Roadless areas were not identified by local National Forest professionals. Roadless areas were analyzed and recommended at the local level. Areas were not forced down from Washington DC as you state in your justification for deregulation. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. Not only that, many roadless areas are roadless due to terrain and geology. Many roadless areas are not conducive to road building. Roads would be expensive to build and expensive to maintain. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. I live in South Carolina. For 2 years I have had a contract to salvage trees blown down during Hurricane Helene. It is a slow process because so many mills have shut down the loggers often cannot even haul the trees to a mill, there is no more room at the mill and they will not buy/accept the logs. NO mills, no harvest. Why don't you do something to support the US wood mills? Why have 6 mills shut down in SC and western NC in 2 years? Why don't you do something about that? That would promote timber harvest much more than eliminating roadless areas.. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. How many of you that live in rural areas want new roads in your backyard? The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. And, regarding your statement the more roads means more access to fight fires; you need to look at the documented evidence that most fires are started near roads. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule.

From a 3-time Trump voter to the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” administration who have become the so-called experts that you warned us of; As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule.

As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms I support. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place.

As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. I want to keep these lands in tact, clean, and pure. I want my children, and my grandchildren to be able to hike, hunt, and fish these lands.

With my profession, I have had the unique opportunity to travel to many foreign nations. One of the most common questions and discussions I have had with non-Americans is how the US has public lands that allow all citizens the right to roam and enjoy wild spaces. Most people do not understand this and cannot believe something like this could exist. It's always a proud feeling when I could say that our government supports and defends the rights of citizens to enjoy these places, and EVERYONE owns public land; not just the elite or the rich. The ability to hunt, fish, recreate, and roam on these lands is the foundation of what it means to be an American. The man who started it all, Theodore Roosevelt once said, "The farther one gets into the wilderness, the greater is the attraction of its lonely freedom." Although we all may never use these public lands, they are something we can never make more of. We'll never run out of roads, but a remote location to break away from the busy urban life is in jeopardy if the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule is recinded. We owe it to future generations to protect these lands from exploitation. Undoing legislation of this nature is a slippery slope for special interest groups to gain a foothold in the misuse of our public lands. Please dont make a permanent solution to what could be, a temporary opportunity. My boiler plate from organizations that also speak on my behalf as a private citizen: As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule.

As a hunter, angler, and outdoorsman, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. Besides the before mentioned reasons for opposing this rescission an increase in roadways and therefore motorized vehicles will result in a sharp increase in wildfires. Wildfire ignitions are roughly four times MORE likely to occur near roads than in roadless forests, underscoring that more roads are not necessarily the answer to wildfire risk. With wildfires increasing in scale and regularity combined with wildland fire responders already being stretched thin an increase in wildfires is catastrophic. If tackling wildfires is a goal bringing more wildland firefighters into the workforce should be the first step along with conducting controlled prescribed burns to lessen fuel load before a catastrophic fire can happen. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms I support. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place.

Leave the Roadless Rule in place as it is. As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule.

I am an avid outdoor recreationist, backcountry angler, spouse of a backcountry hunter whose hunts feed our family, daughter of a retired USFS and State wildland firefighter, and military spouse who regularly visits roadless areas on America's national forests all over this country and I support the No Action alternative in the current DEIS. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. These roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access and game migration, increase fire risk, and reduce opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. Additionally, the rescission would remove important protections for more than 25,000 miles of trails, 10,000 climbing routes, nearly 1,000 miles of whitewater, and more than 10,000 miles of mountain biking. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. Because of this, I strongly support maintaining the Roadless Rule as is. Outdoor recreation is a crucial part of our country's economy and heritage, and rescinding the Roadless Rule would only be remembered as am embarrassing mistake in history books.

I am an avid outdoor recreationist, backcountry angler, backcountry hunter whose hunts feed our family, son-in-law of a retired USFS and State wildland firefighter, and military member who regularly visits roadless areas on America's national forests all over this country and I support the No Action alternative in the current DEIS. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. These roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access and game migration, increase fire risk, and reduce opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. Additionally, the rescission would remove important protections for more than 25,000 miles of trails, 10,000 climbing routes, nearly 1,000 miles of whitewater, and more than 10,000 miles of mountain biking. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. Because of this, I strongly support maintaining the Roadless Rule as is. Outdoor recreation is a crucial part of our country's economy and heritage, and rescinding the Roadless Rule would only be remembered as am embarrassing mistake in history books.

As a hunter, angler, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. USFS currently manages approximately 370,000 miles of roads and faces a deferred maintenance backlog of roughly $10.8 billion, with ~55% of that backlog tied to roads alone. Meanwhile, the proposed rule cites an annual National Forest System sawtimber harvest of just $5.2 to $11.4 million per year in revenue to the Treasury and Forest Service and $4.6 to $10.6 million per year in revenue to the timber industry if the rule were to be rescinded. This proposed action is not fiscally responsible. Building additional roads into currently roadless areas would create new long-term maintenance obligations while diverting resources from the existing infrastructure the agency already struggles to maintain. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule. I believe that management of the forests is vital, but this is not management. This is a pretense to large scale logging operations in line with the president's desire to increase US timber production. Please protect the wild places we hold dear

As an avid recreationist, angler, camper, and public land owner, I urge the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to reject the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. For more than two decades, the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the most important fish and wildlife habitat in the National Forest System while allowing many of the management activities needed to maintain healthy forests. The rule does not prohibit hunting, fishing, grazing, recreation, habitat restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, wildfire mitigation, mining, or access to valid existing rights. Instead, it provides a common-sense framework for limiting new road construction in some of the nation's most intact backcountry landscapes. Limiting new road construction ensure wild trout and salmon streams remain clean and clear. These are places I appreciate and frequent as a fly fisher! Rescinding the rule will harm durable access, game migration, and opportunities for future hunters and anglers across the country. I cut my teeth as an outdoorsman, fishing, hunting, camping in the great state of Idaho, where we appreciate the wild expanses of these roadless areas in our public lands. The Roadless Rule makes fiscal sense. The Forest Service already manages roughly 370,000 miles of roads and faces approximately $10.8 billion in deferred maintenance, with more than half attributable to roads alone. Adding new roads and long-term maintenance obligations won't solve that problem. Roadless areas provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife, conserve clean water, and support the hunting and fishing opportunities that define America's outdoor heritage. These landscapes help maintain secure habitat for elk, mule deer, native trout, and countless other species that depend on large, unfragmented landscapes. They also protect headwater streams and watersheds that supply clean drinking water to communities across the country. The Roadless Rule was developed through one of the largest public participation efforts in federal land management history, generating approximately 1.6 million public comments, 99% of which were in support of the rule. Any decision to weaken or eliminate these protections should be supported by clear evidence that doing so would improve land management outcomes without sacrificing wildlife habitat, watershed health, recreational opportunities, or fiscal responsibility. America's roadless areas remain some of our most valuable public lands. The Forest Service should focus on maintaining existing infrastructure, conserving intact habitat, and ensuring future generations inherit the same hunting, fishing, and backcountry opportunities we enjoy today. While I remain open to common sense, locally informed improvements to the Roadless Rule, Alternative 2 and 3 would remove protections from millions of acres and go far beyond the targeted reforms both I and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers have supported. I respectfully urge the Forest Service to adopt the no action alternative and keep the 2001 Roadless Rule in place. Don't bulldoze the backcountry. Defend the Roadless Rule.