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 comments43 submissions

Position

Opposes rescission 100.0%

Answerability

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

Substance /24

Median 3middle half 3–3 · 1 scored

Topics raised

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

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-606021
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of roadless areas in the National Forest System. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-607132
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 7, 2026FS-2025-0001-610902
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, landscape fire restoration. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of roadless areas in the National Forest System. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584191
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. It's clear the forest service as currently scoped is not able to maintain or support the hundreds of thousands of roads it already has through and around wilderness. This is a blatant attempt to sell off or provide extractive access to land that belongs to the public, not private for-profit entities. There's also plenty of study data that hiding this behind firefighter access is BS and more roads = more fire starts. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, climate resilience, recreation access. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about Once fragmented, there is no chance of returning these lands to their original intended cohesive expanse. They are remote, pristine, and wild which is rare and irreplaceable. However they also almost singlehandedly support the entire economy of the region where I live and are loved by hundreds of thousands of people AS-IS. This is the concept of 7th generation: protect what you have, so future generations will be able to enjoy it. Considering it's already a huge economic engine for a broad coalition of communities and user groups, any further damage or fragmentation will be detrimental to the people and communities invested in the Outdoor State. Not to mention the clear overreach on behalf of a few egocentric, self-profit driven individuals and entities who would be the only potential beneficiary. Meanwhile what is here will be irreparably harmed for now and future generations. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584403
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, climate resilience, recreation access, landscape fire restoration. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.) roadless area(s). Keep this land untouched, the untouched preservation of land in America is the greatest thing our country has. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584418
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a life-long user of our nation’s wild lands, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about clean water, climate resilience, recreation access. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Cuyama and Fox Mountain, as well as many of the central and southern Sierra areas roadless area(s). These areas are spectacular, unique places that deserve respect and protection. Wildernesses like these are irreplaceable for the wildlife that lives there and the people who spend time there. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584544
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning processes to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas to an adequate level across the National Forest System. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measures. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless area(s). I am particularly concerned about biodiversity conservation. These areas are best kept roadless. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584650
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a recreationist and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that Species extinction and habitat destruction cannot be reversed. The time to act is before, not after the fact. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I also want to emphasize that We share this planet with millions of other species and the more we try to dominate, the less will be left for us in the long run. Please do everything to preserve what is natural. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about biodiversity. I studied biology as an undergrad and was very fortunate to hear prize winning biologist and ecologist, EO Wilson, speak at Harvard University in 1987. His message was urgent then and things have not improved at all. His work as well as multiple other scientists is very clear on this issue. Wilson said. “The radical reduction of the world’s biodiversity is something for which future generations will least forgive us.” Our children deserve a future that allows a deep connection and LIVING IN BALANCE with nature These roadless areas are important to me because Please don't destroy what has been present for thousands and thousands of years. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584690
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of roadless areas in the National Forest System. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584714
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a Conservationist and proud land steward to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a Land steward, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of roadless areas in the National Forest System. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584731
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and Rock climber to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator and Climber and educator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that The students I teach deserve to have this land for continued public use, they deserve to see these lands thrive with the animals that live there, and to have this space for learning and recreation. As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of roadless areas in the National Forest System. I am particularly concerned about how this construction will impact the local communities, the wildlife, and our environment Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584754
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user and recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, clean water, climate resilience, recreation access, landscape fire restoration. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Stanislaus and San Bernidino forests roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about This nation was once covered by seemingly endless forests. These were demolished with no thought for the future until the end was in sight. Today, we have a scant remainder only of these once vast forests, and we the people have already wisely elected to protect them with the roadless rule. We do not consent to the removal of this rule. These lands are priceless treasures, purifying our water, clearing carbon out of our air, home to wildlife and spaces to travel, vacation, and to love our beautiful country. The destruction of the Roadless Rule is utter folly, and it is against the will of the people These roadless areas are important to me because These lands are priceless treasures, purifying our water, clearing carbon out of our air, stunning to see, home to wildlife, and spaces for us to travel, vacation, and to love forever. We cannot lose them. I also want to share this personal perspective: I am an avid traveler I treaure all of the wild areas we have left to us. These will not return if we lose them. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584821
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about I am concerned that increasing access to undeveloped land by paving it threatens what was once considered a strength of our country. In America, the fertile soil, old growth trees and wildlife built financial wealth within a few hundred years. At the same time, Europe's natural resources were stripped down to nothing. They are a continent that is still in recovery from over-harvensting of natural resources. Now, we've stripped those resources here. Even the soil and it's ability to capture carbon has been reduced. We cannot replicate these habitats or resources within several human lifespans. What is lost may not be replaced. To disrupt life and carbon for an immediate cash-win will only exacerbate climate change Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584827
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, recreation access. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of roadless areas in the National Forest System. I am particularly concerned about protecting the habitat, clean water, connectivity, solitude, recreation opportunities, and other values that depend on intact roadless landscapes. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584840
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a community member and occasional recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I also want to emphasize that I am a resident of the state of Arizona, where we frequently have large wildfires fueled by droughts. There have been multiple significant fires caused by cars in the state, including the Round Valley Fire in June this year that seems to have been caused by a car explosion. I would prefer if the scientists who know how water moves across the land and how long it takes for the native vegetation to recover from wildfires to determine what makes the most sense for the forests we enjoy visiting. I am particularly concerned about climate resilience. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Tonto National Forest roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about I have always lived in a drought, and we all need water to live. By that, I mean everything from humans to livestock to wild animals who live among the deserts and forests. We can adapt, but large scale change has been slow. A major challenge in climate resilience for where I live involves the Colorado River, which is an interstate and even international issue that should be in the national interest for the population size and economic value involved These roadless areas are important to me because This is the closest national forest from the Phoenix area, and is the easiest place for people who visit or even live in Phoenix to experience directly that Arizona is not just desert, but a multifaceted ecosystem with trees. I used to think camping, hiking, and kayaking required going further to the north and south of the state, but Tonto National Forest is where I have learned to enjoy what might seem mundane and take in the nature that is closer than one may think. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-584861
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about sensitive/endangered/threatened species. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about That people will trash and cause fires These roadless areas are important to me because Just let it be. The nature belongs to everyone it is our nature. I also want to share this personal perspective: I want all to enjoy this land for an eternity. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-595991
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user, recreationist, and scientist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that While the involvment of locales is key, having a national policy will diminish wasteful spending and time developing policies for those they may not have experience in making policies. It will also provide direction as corporations not locally based try to take advantage of communities and destroy natural assest that cannot be replaced. As a community member, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, firefighter risk, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of roadless areas in the National Forest System. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity I also want to share this personal perspective: Having areas that are in accessible by cars provides goals and challenges for anyone wanting to find the solitute that our present cultural and technology doesn’t afford us. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-596011
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that We know that this rulings intent is to had over this land to private corporations that will extract and profit on any resources that would be open by roads. I say no to building roads. As a community member and recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, invasive species, biodiversity, clean water, soil erosion, climate resilience, recreation access, firefighter risk, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Bridgeport (Mt. Hicks, Aurora Crater, Mt. Jackson, Hoover Areas etc.), Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about Privatization of our forests, waters, ecosystems. Privatization creates exclusion of the public, and extraction of resources that destroy habitat and ecosystems These roadless areas are important to me because All of them are unique. The pleasure I have at walking in such areas surpasses any extraction of resources. The burn areas have many regenerative seedlings growing. For 1/2 a billion years plants and forests have regenerated themselves and supported life. We would be arrogant to think we have to clean up the forest. Roads are an introduction to privatization and extraction. It is a false ploy to say roads will help to get the burned trees out. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-596275
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user and recreationist to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a Political science professor and retired, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that I have taught graduate and undergraduate courses in environmental politics. The material has covered local control versus control from the federal and state government. There’s a long academic literature on why purely local control as proposed by alternative to has failed in the past. As a public lands user and recreationist, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about these roadless areas because I have camped and backpacked since I was a child. Since I was in high school, I have backpacked and camped along the eastern Sierra. This year I was in the eastern Sierra four times. Although I don’t live there, I regularly visit and spend time and money there. These roadless areas are important to me because I have camped and backpacked since I was a child. Since I was in high school, I have backpacked and camped along the eastern Sierra. This year I was in the eastern Sierra four times. Although I don’t live there, I regularly visit and spend time and money there. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
Full analysis of this comment →
Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 3/24Oct 6, 2026FS-2025-0001-596334
PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
Campaign — One letter sent by 10 or more people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 43 submissions in its group.
"I am writing as a public lands user to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule). As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that the proposed rescission emphasizes greater local decision-making authority in forest planning processes. The Roadless Rule was established in part due to the failure of local forest planning process to maintain ecological, cultural, and public values of roadless areas at an adequate level across the National system. Returning these decisions to wholly local planning processes should not be treated as a substitute for consistent nationwide protection measurements. Once nationwide protections are removed, individual decisions may fail to account for the cumulative loss and fragmentation of roadless landscapes across the National Forest System. I would also like to emphasize that The wilderness is the last escape from the madness of society. The moment roads are added, the domino effect begins and the habitat is raped. We've seen it play out multiple times in the past 100 years in various locations. As a recreator, I am concerned about the claim that removing the Roadless Rule is necessary to reduce wildfire risk. 96.2% of fires start within 800 meters of a road (Pacific Biodiversity Institute). It is clear that more roads mean more fires. Wildfire risk reduction should not be used as a blanket justification for expanding roads and resource extraction into millions of acres of roadless wildlands. Effective fire management should prioritize strategic, science-based, site-specific treatments where they meaningfully protect communities and firefighters, rather than broadly removing protections from remote landscapes. I am particularly concerned about wildlife habitat and connectivity, sensitive/endangered/threatened species, clean water, recreation access, firefighter risk, solitude and landscape connectivity. The claim that putting these forests under local control would have little adverse impact on the land managers' ability to protect undeveloped wildlands puts these values at risk. I have an intimate knowledge of the Lee Vining (Mono Craters, Log Cabin Saddlebag, Tioga Lake etc.), Mammoth (Laurel McGee, Sherwin, San Joaquin, Rock Creek, Glass Mountain etc.), Bishop (Wheeler Ridge, Buttermilk, Coyote North and South, Boundary Peak, etc. ), Big Pine and Lone Pine (Soldier Canyon, Paiute, Tinemaha, Independence Creek etc.) roadless areas. I am particularly concerned about these roadless areas because They are the last haven for animals and mankind alike. Destroying them; which roads will open the areas up andallow people to do , is out of pure greed, and lack of foresight. These roadless areas are important to me because They are the last haven for animals and mankind alike. Destroying them; which roads will open the areas up andallow people to do , is out of pure greed, and lack of foresight. Keep the roadless rule by choosing the no action alternative."
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.