“I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule…”

I write today in strong support for the no action alternative and the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule is popular, its conservative, its responsive to local and national needs, and its working. Rescinding the roadless rule wont prevent wildfire. Just the opposite, in fact. More roads mean more human-caused wildfires. 90 percent of all wildfires start within one mile of a road, and wildfires are four times as likely to ignite in areas with roads than roadless areas. Roadless areas not only contain the best intact habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, they are also important to me as a place to recreate. Roadless areas offer some of the best places in America to hunt, fish, hike, bike, paddle, ski, and climb. I urge you not to erase protections for our roadless areas, which are home to most of our last remaining old-growth forests in America and protecting them is more important than ever in light of hotter and drier weather. Roadless areas and the protections afforded to them by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule are critical to our high quality of life. The rule itself is enormously popular. It is supported by millions of Americans, and it has stood the test of time. This attempt to eliminate protections for our public lands is bound to be unpopular, just like Congress failed attempt in 2025 to sell our public lands. Americans are paying attention, and we want our roadless areas left alone. I am one of the millions of Americans who oppose opening roadless areas to road building, commercial logging, mining, and drilling. Its not too late to abandon this unpopular, unscientific, and unwise effort to sacrifice our public forests. I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Please choose the no action alternative. Sincerely, Mr. Sheldon S Finkelstein Arizona