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.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 9 submissions in its group.
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Janine Pierce
California
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I very much oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable landscapes and our beautiful American land, up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. We should be protecting the forests so many of us love and see as what makes America great, not turning it into yet another roadway. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Megan LaMarca
Ohio
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I hope you are doing well. As a young environmentalist hoping to positively impact the health of our planet and make the world a better place, it would really mean a lot to me if you would read my entire message and thoughtfully consider everything I am saying.
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Denver Oakes
NY
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. This is a short-sighted, irresponsible betrayal of everyone here in the U.S. and anyone who might potentially visit, not to mention of the land and ecosystems it is our job to protect.
The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Erin Luckey
Illinois
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
We should protect every acre that remains of wild land, we cannot destroy any more.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Carrie Heywood
Ohio
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
My tax money is to protect the wildlife, land that is free and clear of human encroachment and to keep a piece of the United States in the condition that it should be (without roads and buildings that humans decided to build).
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Griffin
Dear Secretary Rollins,
Please reject the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
Montana is heralded for its beauty and raw reality of God's creation, which I was lucky to get to know this past year.
Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Davis Houle
Montana, North Dakota
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule.
I feel passionately about this as when we take away the natural beauty in nature, we may never fully recover its same beauty. We leave it open to vulnerability.
Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Sincerely,
Elle Ryan
Georgia
Dear Secretary Rollins,
I strongly oppose the Proposed Rule rescinding the 2001 Roadless Rule. PLEASE do NOT rescind this Rule. Our wildlife needs the American people and the government to protect them! As an American I eant all of our wildlfe protected.
Rolling back the Roadless Rule will open irreplaceable Montana landscapes up to large-scale logging, road construction, and other development that will industrialize our national forests. The Roadless Rule has protected irreplaceable roadless values while permitting fire suppression, fuels mitigation work, trail maintenance, and other forest management activities for the past 25 years. It is a fiscally responsible, environmentally sound, multiple-use management tool.
Please adopt the No Action alternative for the Final Rule.
Regards,
Terri Lawler
California
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.This comment stands for all 9 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 9 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 9 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 9 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 9 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 9 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 9 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 9 submissions in its group.
Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. See the letter, its submissions and topics.One of 9 submissions in its group.