“Forest health concerns and wildfire risks should be addressed”
“customized approaches for each situation and location”
“repeal of the roadless rule is likely to lead to greater fire risks”
“human ignition sources are far more likely to occur with the addition of roads”
The comment
Re: Opposition to Recission of the 2001 Roadless Rule - Docket FS-2025-0001
I am writing to express my opposition to the recission of the 2001 Roadless Rule. I am a passionate outdoorsman, who frequently uses wilderness areas for backpacking, hiking, hunting and fishing. The Roadless Rule has effectively protected our wilderness areas, including habitat for flora and fauna, and has prevented their degradation from vehicles and overuse.
The NOI cites problems which can be resolved through targeted, site-specific fixes. These issues do not require recission of the national rule which has prevented road building and timber extraction in areas where landscape preservation is critical for the environment. Forest health concerns and wildfire risks should be addressed, but this should be accomplished through customized approaches for each situation and location. There is no one-size fits all solution and recission of the roadless rule is certainly not the answer. In fact, the repeal of the roadless rule is likely to lead to greater fire risks, as human ignition sources are far more likely to occur with the addition of roads to wilderness areas.
I strongly urge the reconsideration of the recission of the roadless rule and recommend the development of alternative solutions for consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Craigmile
Dubois, WY 82513