Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-500020

Opposes rescissionPosted September 28, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Not scored for substance: the comment does not clear the floor of substantive signal.

Topics

What it names

Roadless areas
Santa Cruz

Attachments

1 file. Counts as 1 — Counts as one: The attachments enclose no one else's submissions; the comment counts as one.

  • Own letter

The comment

I live in Port Angeles, WA, on the Olympic Peninsula and previously lived among the redwoods in Santa Cruz County, CA. So I know, close-up, that our forests are irreplaceable. We rely on them to breath, to help protect our water supply, and to soothe our souls, especially in these turbulent times. Rescinding the Roadless Rule will destroy the peace that attracts tourists who are the basis for our local economy, will cause great harm to wildlife and Wildlands as it leads to types of recreation that destroy wilderness areas and protected public lands, and will inevitably lead to greed destroying much of it through drilling for oil, mining for minerals, and building resorts -- all to make rich people richer while you absolutely ruin what we should leave for our children and future generations evermore. PLEASE do what you're paid to do: PROTECT forests and don't rescind the Roadless Rule.

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