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.

2 unique comments2 submissions
Position
  • Opposes rescission 100.0%
Answerability
  • A1 strong 0
  • A2 moderate 0
  • A3 weak 0
  • A0 none 1
Substance /24
Median 6middle half 6–6 · 1 scored
Topics raised
Count
Position
Answerability
Substance /24
Order
2 unique comments naming Los Padres National Forest signed from CA · showing 1–2Clear all filters
  1. Opposes rescissionOct 4, 2026FS-2025-0001-540613
    Dear U.S. Forest Service, I strongly oppose the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule. Our remaining roadless forests are valuable public lands that provide wildlife habitat, clean water, recreation, and something that is increasingly difficult to find—places where nature can remain wild and undisturbed. As a resident of Nipomo, I especially value the Los Padres National Forest and the wild places of our Central Coast. For me, walking through a quiet, undeveloped forest is much more than a recreational experience. It is soothing, renewing, and has a spiritual quality that I believe can only be found in undisturbed nature. These places give us an opportunity to slow down, reconnect with the natural world, and experience a sense of peace that cannot be recreated once a landscape is developed. The Roadless Rule helps protect these special places from the impacts of new roads, logging, and other development. Roads can fragment wildlife habitat, disturb watersheds, and change the character of areas that have remained wild for generations. Once a road is built into a previously undisturbed forest, that sense of solitude and wildness can be very difficult, if not impossible, to restore. Please maintain the Roadless Rule and continue protecting these irreplaceable lands for wildlife, clean water, recreation, and future generations. We should be protecting the remaining wild places on our public lands, not opening them to unnecessary development. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Linda Moran Nipomo, CA 93444
    Full analysis of this comment →
  2. Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Aug 20, 2026FS-2025-0001-225559
    PLACESTANDDOCGAPEVIDASKALTLAW
    My favorite activity is hiking in the National Forests in California. I especially love roadless areas to experience the true natural environment and seeing animals in the wild. Therefore, I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. Recently I have hiked in the Los Padres National Forest to reach the Garcia Wilderness and Santa Lucia Wilderness for hunting. We don’t need more roads; we need more roadless wilderness for outdoor activities like hunting and backpacking. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Mark Daugherty 1985 Reina Ct San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
    Full analysis of this comment →

Keep learning. Keep speaking up.The Roadless Rule depends on public engagement. Share what you've learned.

© 2026 roadless.org - Defending America's Last Wild Forests

Privacy Policy|Questions or concerns? noroads@roadless.org|Follow us: @defendroadless