Read the comments.

I, Emily Lindquist, am in support of the roadless rule for many reasons. First of all, I am in support of it because most of the current “roadless land” is unusable for timber and mining. Past politicians deemed this land “roadless” for good reason. Oftentimes, these areas are along mountainsides with slopes at a 30 degree incline or more. Only a few areas are appropriate for certain industries like logging and mining. Ultimately, this determination should be made locally, not by the federal government. Residents of these few areas that would be appropriate for logging and mining deserve a fair trade. The local taxpayer would be trading away public land usage and therefore, the corporations using that land should directly pay for some of the local taxpayers’ taxes if they are to use that land. Before we even consider rescinding the roadless rule: we need to be upgrading existing ones.There are thousands of miles of roads that are in need of repair or are no longer used. These roads and the 400 million acres of private land around them need to be re-evaluated for timber harvest and mining before stealing public land from public hands. I do support some level of fuel reduction near currently existing homes, but there is also an incredibly large amount that wildfire-prone homeowners can do to help protect their homes from wildfires. Fuel reduction on existing roads is ok as long as it’s up to local entities to decide how that’s done.

I am in support of the roadless rule for many reasons. First of all, I am in support of it because most of the current “roadless land” is unusable for timber and mining. Past politicians deemed this land “roadless” for good reason. Oftentimes, these areas are along mountainsides with slopes at a 30 degree incline or more. Only a few areas are appropriate for certain industries like logging and mining. Ultimately, this determination should be made locally, not by the federal government. Residents of these few areas that would be appropriate for logging and mining deserve a fair trade. The local taxpayer would be trading away public land usage and therefore, the corporations using that land should directly pay for some of the local taxpayers’ taxes if they are to use that land. Before we even consider rescinding the roadless rule: we need to be upgrading existing ones.There are thousands of miles of roads that are in need of repair or are no longer used. These roads and the 400 million acres of private land around them need to be re-evaluated for timber harvest and mining before stealing public land from public hands. I do support some level of fuel reduction near currently existing homes, but there is also an incredibly large amount that wildfire-prone homeowners can do to help protect their homes from wildfires. Fuel reduction on existing roads is ok as long as it’s up to local entities to decide how that’s done. “National Park Visior Spending contributes $56 billion to the US economy in 2024.” (NPS.gov) Economically speaking, preserving the parks and national forests around them is a sound investment. Many of these visitors spend money to visit because the parks and forests around the parks are pristine. If we move the line in the sand, both the national parks and forests lose their luster. For these reasons, it’s crucial to the economic success of the average American that the national forests remain healthy, roadless, and pristine for generations to come.

I support of the roadless rule for many reasons. First of all, I am in support of it because most of the current “roadless land” is unusable for timber and mining. Past politicians deemed this land “roadless” for good reason. Oftentimes, these areas are along mountainsides with slopes at a 30 degree incline or more. Only a few areas are appropriate for certain industries like logging and mining. Ultimately, this determination should be made locally, not by the federal government. Residents of these few areas that would be appropriate for logging and mining deserve a fair trade. The local taxpayer would be trading away public land usage and therefore, the corporations using that land should directly pay for some of the local taxpayers’ taxes if they are to use that land. Before we even consider rescinding the roadless rule: we need to be upgrading existing ones.There are thousands of miles of roads that are in need of repair or are no longer used. These roads and the 400 million acres of private land around them need to be re-evaluated for timber harvest and mining before stealing public land from public hands. I do support some level of fuel reduction near currently existing homes, but there is also an incredibly large amount that wildfire-prone homeowners can do to help protect their homes from wildfires. Fuel reduction on existing roads is ok as long as it’s up to local entities to decide how that’s done. “National Park Visior Spending contributes $56 billion to the US economy in 2024.” (NPS.gov) Economically speaking, preserving the parks and national forests around them is a sound investment. Many of these visitors spend money to visit because the parks and forests around the parks are pristine. If we move the line in the sand, both the national parks and forests lose their luster. For these reasons, it’s crucial to the economic success of the average American that the national forests remain healthy, roadless, and pristine for generations to come.