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 comments16 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 4middle half 4–4 · 1 scored

Topics raised

16 submissions in this letter's group · showing 1–16Clear all filters

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-592906
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I have grown up exploring areas around Seattle and really found my passion for the outdoors in college. I spend almost every weekend on trails with my friends whether it’s skiing, biking, running, or camping. Particular areas I love are the Teanaway and the middle fork. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. I have grown up venturing on these trails and have become a better citizen and person exploring our wild areas. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-592953
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Montana and the Pacific Northwest. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-592969
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I routinely travel and explore roadless areas. We need to keep these areas pure and free from development. Opening these areas to logging and development will ruin our pristine natural areas. Once we develop them we can never fret them back. Please please please don’t do this. We need to think of our children’s children when making a decision like this. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-593000
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
WE NEED NATURE. Humans don't need to access everything by cars. I have hiked and backpacked through so much beautiful, untainted by humans land and am devasted that y'all are considering opening access to these areas THAT DO NOT NEED US! I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers and Mountains to Sound Greenway. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for reading and considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-593142
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Personally, even just the simple reason of wanting to be in nature without traffic noise is a major reason that I want the roadless rule to remain intact. It is so important to be able to find a moment of peace in nature, especially as our urban and suburban areas get busier, louder, and more built up everyday. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-593203
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment. I feel that we have so little forest left, we need to preserve it. All the fires destroy lands also. . Please protect our public lands!!
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-593502
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am a proud American who cherishes the outdoor recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-593519
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment. There We Are Then
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-594017
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my strong opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-525025
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-525029
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-525032
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-525035
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-525100
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-525156
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Oct 1, 2026FS-2025-0001-525160
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 16 submissions in its group.
I am an outdoor enthusiast who cherishes the backcountry recreation experiences provided by Roadless national forests across the Pacific Northwest and beyond. I’m writing to share my opposition to the administration’s effort to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I oppose any plan alternative that rescinds Roadless protections and leaves our forests vulnerable to increased extraction and development through changes to local forest plans. Opening up backcountry forests to development would irreparably harm these beloved spaces and the sustainable outdoor access and recreation economy that depend on them. A sweeping rollback of the Roadless Rule is unpopular and unnecessary - 98% of public comments on the Notice of Intent opposing rolling back Roadless protections. Roadless protections are extremely important to the outdoor recreation community. Full rescission of the Rule would affect 45 million acres of national forests, including 2 million acres in Washington state, rolling back protections on 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking nationally. Roadless areas are especially important to my own outdoor experiences on federally managed public lands, including programs and activities facilitated by outdoor education providers like The Mountaineers. The Roadless Rule protects our country’s forests and the values they support. In addition to backcountry recreation, Roadless Areas also protect the following values: -Intact old-growth forests for environmental health and climate resilience -Indigenous cultural rights and lifeways -Wildlife habitat -Clean drinking water for gateway communities At a time when public lands and communities across the West are increasingly impacted by large and intense wildfires, this policy is a step in the wrong direction. Opening intact backcountry forests to new roads is not a wildfire solution. It’s a move that would lead to more fire starts and more wildfires. According to the Forest Service, 9 out of 10 wildfires are caused by people. In addition, I also oppose a partial recession, including any attempt to exempt currently roaded areas and the Wildland Urban Interface. This type of recession would result in the loss of protections for approximately 50% of Roadless national forests. The Roadless Rule already includes appropriate exceptions to ensure local land managers have flexibility to address wildfire risk. Thank you for considering my comment.
Full analysis of this comment →

Sharing & methodology

These results are meant to be shared.

Please cite us. This analysis is the intellectual property of Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser. You are welcome to reproduce it — every reproduction must include this citation:

Roadless.org and Nicholas Holshouser, “2001 Roadless Rule Revision — Substantive Analysis,” https://roadless.org.

How it works. A large language model (an open-weight Qwen3.8 model) reads each substantive comment and copies, word for word, the passages that carry its analytical gap, evidence, request, alternative and connection to the place; it returns no scores. Code grades those passages 0–3 on eight dimensions — evidence, legal grounding, engagement with the environmental analysis, analytical gaps, alternatives, specific requests, position, and local knowledge — with legal grounding taken from a citation scan, not the model. For the strongest tenth on each side, the copied passages are checked against the comment and shown as exhibits. A comment counts as “substantive” when it clears a floor filter — it must show at least one substantive signal (a named entity, a specific citation, a stated analytical deficiency, or first-person testimony), which screens out one-line and purely conclusory submissions before any model scoring.

The full method. Every step, why it is done that way, its known limits and a glossary: Methodologies →

The data. The full canonical dataset — every comment on Docket FS-2025-0001 — is available from Regulations.gov's bulk download, the canonical source: https://www.regulations.gov/bulkdownload. Download the CSV directly (Regulations.gov keeps this link working until October 18, 2026): https://bulk-downloads.regulations.gov/mv4-z8fw-q5jx.csv.

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