Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted September 17, 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 eliminatedThe agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressedThe 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 decisionThe agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not requiredThe agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference notedThe 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 shownThe agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantiveThe agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
“foundational roles in the lives of our founding fathers”
“intangible ethos of respecting the natural world”
“American spirit”
“values of care and stewardship”
What it names
Roadless areas
White Pine
The comment
I am a backcountry enthusiast, fishing and hunting maniac, and a proud conservationist. I am equally an American patriot. As such, you will not be surprised to know that I vehemently oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule, which protects a mere 59 million acres of forest out of the 193 million under USFS management. Yes, the presence of roads on USFS land have a positive correlation with forest fires, and yes, roads can negatively affect forest management practices. That said, I will let other commenters touch on those points of contention, and will exclusively address one item gravely threatened by the potential rescission of the rule: the American spirit. The backcountry and natural world played foundational roles in the lives of our founding fathers and most honorable American men. They served as media through which great American leaders first instilled values of care and stewardship in our country and Western Society. If you think otherwise, I refer you to the early writings of Washington as he traversed the western frontier of land that eventually became Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio, virtually anything written by Teddy Roosevelt, or Jefferson's journaling on the importance of agrarian stewardship. These men injected an intangible ethos of respecting the natural world into what became the American blood — blood that knows no race or religion and courses through every National Park visiter and hunting and fishing license owner. In 2026, opportunities to respect and interact with an untouched natural world are few and far between. The following phenomenon is a reality of the modern world: the presence of development, cars, and people per acre of American land increases each year. The Roadless Rule keeps 59 million acres safe from that phenomenon, and if we lose it, our nation will lose its attachment to its values gifted by Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and many other men and women. What happens when there are no opportunities to interact with and care for the untouched natural American landscape? Will the American progeny care about the men and women before it who braved the frontier to establish comforts of modern life? Will it care about the beauty and intensity of life without modern comforts, as witnessed through the scent of an old white pine, a lahontan cutthroat in a shallow pool during summer, the mountain laurel in its beauty during springtime, the red oak during fall, an eastern tree frog traversing the forest floor after rain, or a covey of valley quail braving high winds under a toyon tree? The answer to these two rhetorical questions is an obvious "no." In other words, future generations will lose the intangible value of stewardship that our founding fathers injected into the American spirit. The Roadless Rule protects this component of the American spirit from being lost, and I am willing to defend the American spirit with my life. I thus beg the administration to resist rescinding the Roadless Rule so that we Americans do not lose a respect for the natural world that fundamentally shaped the development of our nation and its spirit. Thank you.