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 4 submissions in its group.
I oppose this plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and leave in place the regulations that protect our forests, wildlife, and watersheds.
Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless.
Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. Research has shown that more roads lead to more wildfires due to human activity. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential and irreplaceable forests and natural landscapes.
I am not letting our forests go without a fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who love them and for our future generations.
I oppose this plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and leave in place the regulations that protect our forests, wildlife, and watersheds.
Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless.
Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. Research has shown that more roads lead to more wildfires due to human activity. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential and irreplaceable forests and natural landscapes.
I am not letting our forests go without a fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who love them and for our future generations.
I oppose this plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and leave in place the regulations that protect our forests, wildlife, and watersheds.
Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless.
Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. Research has shown that more roads lead to more wildfires due to human activity. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential and irreplaceable forests and natural landscapes.
I am not letting our forests go without a fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who love them and for our future generations.
I oppose this plan to roll back the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I urge you to reverse course and leave in place the regulations that protect our forests, wildlife, and watersheds.
Opening up tens of millions of acres of U.S. forests in cherished public lands like California’s Tahoe National Forest and important segments of the Appalachian Trail to destructive logging and road building is reckless.
Gutting the Roadless Rule would risk more polluted drinking water for over 25 million Americans, increased flooding, and more landslides. It would imperil recreation areas where people hunt, hike, camp, fish, climb, and paddle. It endangers irreplaceable habitat for iconic animals. And it would jeopardize the integrity of incomparable places like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest and the nation’s largest old-growth forest. Research has shown that more roads lead to more wildfires due to human activity. If anything, the Rule should be strengthened to better protect all the extraordinary natural values of our essential and irreplaceable forests and natural landscapes.
I am not letting our forests go without a fight. Preserve the Roadless Rule and protect national forests for communities who love them and for our future generations.
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 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 submissions in its group.