Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-359205

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 12, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

Still open to the agency

Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “conflicts between motorized users and non-motorized users”
- “forever changing my recreation experience”
- “trails that my family and I have enjoyed”
- “user conflict, visitor safety”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “keep these lands safe from continued encroachment”
- “center these machines instead of human beings and ecosystems”
- “impact already dwindling Federally protected land”
Governance Policy Process
- “reject the proposed open unless designated closed proposal”
- “flip this to open to motorized vehicles unless explicitly closed”
- “built upon fifty years of established standards”

What it names

National Forests: Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

The comment

REJECT THE OPEN UNLESS DESIGNATED CLOSED PROPOSAL FOR TRAILS. As a hiker and supporter of American Hiking Society I am calling on the Forest Service to reject the proposed open unless designated closed proposal in the Travel Management Rule Notice of Intent. I have worked as a Trails Technician for the Forest Service in Philipsburg, Montana and I know for a fact this rule would affect hiking trails on that district, to say nothing of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest as a whole. This would greatly impact already dwindling Federally protected land and create conflicts between motorized users and non-motorized users. Our country is built around vehicles and machines that burn petroleum so that we can all get to where we’re going extremely fast. Why not keep these lands safe from continued encroachment of unnecessary development that once again center these machines instead of human beings and ecosystems. Please reject this proposal outright. The Travel Management rule was built upon fifty years of established standards. The rule relies on a standard that trails are closed unless designated opened. The proposed revisions would flip this to open to motorized vehicles unless explicitly closed for all new trails and an annual review of trails that are closed to motorized use. As a hiker, this means the trails that my family and I have enjoyed and stewarded for half a century could be opened to unintended uses—putting my safety at risk and forever changing my recreation experience across National Forests. This proposal would open a Pandora's box of devastating consequences for all user groups, both motorized and non-motorized. This would reopen old wounds and ignite new issues related to user conflict, visitor safety and pose challenges to the maintenance of trails by volunteers and partners. The Forest Service must reject this 'open unless closed' proposal in the final rule.