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 comments30 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

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-570578
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. Taking these lands from us and irreversibly destroying them would be blatant thievery. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-570647
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Do not remove the 2001 Roadless Rule. We do not need roads in the forests nor human access. Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-581243
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Protect the environment. Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-568823
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
These are our forests. We the people demand that they not be sold to big business! Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-569053
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Living in Arizona, I am highly sensitive to actions that decrease or increase wildfire risk. Ending the roadless rule actually increases wildfires! Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Oct 5, 2026FS-2025-0001-569234
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Nature deserves a chance - and humans deserve a chance to enjoy Nature. Why are you doing this? We have enough roads. We have enough loggers and oil barons. STOP!!! Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 9, 2026FS-2025-0001-340083
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
I object to any changes to the Roadless Rule. This rule protects the public lands so we can all use them. They don't belong to government. They belong to We the People, and we want to keep them in place. Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 9, 2026FS-2025-0001-341268
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Our public lands are not for sale! I strongly oppose the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 8, 2026FS-2025-0001-338163
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my very strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. Please consider this comment as my individual submission. I want my voice and vote to count. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 8, 2026FS-2025-0001-338278
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Our country is losing wilderness and protections for wildlife every day this administration is in power. They have and are doing everything they can to hurt our land, water and air. This must stop! Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Sep 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-324769
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
I live near a wide swatch of PNW forest that has been protected by the 2001 Roadless rule for the last 25 years. The economic, health and community benefits of these intact wild places have been immeasurable for our rural towns. I'm devastated to hear that USDA Secretary Brook Rollins has proposed removing the 2001 Roadless Rule. Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Sep 3, 2026FS-2025-0001-311654
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
My little nephews deserve better than to see our public lands plundered! Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 24, 2026FS-2025-0001-262650
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Public lands must remain untouched by industry Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-256668
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
We are stewards of our public lands and are responsible for protecting them! Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 5/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-257375
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
What kind of future world are we giving our children and grandchildren if we allow destruction of vital forest, fauna and wildlife habitat? All for short term money making ventures? This is wrong on so many levels., Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-257825
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Stop this greedy land grab. This land belongs to the people! Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-258385
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
I frequently camp and hike in Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. It's a quiet refuge from the noise and bombardment of everyday life. To rescind the protection of these undeveloped lands is a blatant excuse to prioritize timber and mining over maintaining ecosystems that provide clean watersheds, habitat, and respite for millions of Americans who value nature over exploitation. Also, once those areas are carved up and maimed by industry, they are gone forever. Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-259080
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Not enough nature preserved already Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 23, 2026FS-2025-0001-261260
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
We cannot afford to continue destroying our environment for private gain. Intact forest and wetland ecosystems is our lifeline. There is no Planet B. Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to rescind the Roadless Rule.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 2/24Aug 22, 2026FS-2025-0001-244901
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 30 submissions in its group.
Roadless areas were established by overwhelming citizen support. The majority still want to keep it that way. Money and profits are not the only value we hold. We value the wild roadless areas and unique flora and fauna there. In truth, roadless areas are less prone to wildfires due to less human interaction. Our public lands are not for sale! I am writing today to express my strong opposition to the Trump administration’s proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. This harmful proposal would open millions of acres of federal lands to massive roadbuilding, logging, or other extractive projects and sidestep critical environmental reviews and safeguards for endangered species. It ignores science-based forest management and would put public land and waterways at risk for human-caused impacts such as increased wildfires, species loss and water and air pollution. National forests and BLM lands provide critical habitat for wildlife, as well as old-growth forests that help fight climate change. These pristine lands help filter and preserve drinking water for millions of Americans and are critical in reducing carbon needed for a healthy and stable climate. As an older generation American, I learned when I was young that our public lands belong to all Americans—for these public lands are an important part of what makes the U.S. special. These lands should not be used to benefit extractive industries, corporate polluters or private interests. They should be held in trust for all Americans, for generations to come. And adding roads will not help manage or protect these areas as suggested by this proposal. Rather, it will make our lands more vulnerable to human-caused impacts. The public deserves an opportunity to have our voices heard. There should be an adequate public comment period before anything happens on our lands. So I am asking you now to protect our public lands by opposing this proposal to 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: https://www.regulations.gov/bulkdownload.

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