Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-540734

Opposes rescissionPosted October 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “protect our diminishing wild places and wild lands”
    • “habitat degrades and roads are generally never removed”
    • “conserve more resources and wild spaces for the future”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “good for wildlife”
    • “habitat degrades”
    • “roads intrude on wild places”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “good for people”
    • “Most people in the U.S. enjoy nature”
    • “believe in nature and we must conserve it”

The comment

Dear Secretary: As a U.S. citizen and Iowan, I oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule, and instead urge the Department to keep the rule in place as written. It is an essential rule to protect our diminishing wild places and wild lands. Once roads are built, habitat degrades and roads are generally never removed. Thus, roads intrude on wild places that are not only good for wildlife, but for people. Most people in the U.S. enjoy nature and we should keep this rule in place. I ask this administration to consider the needs of generations of Americans two and three removed from those of us currently living. Tearing up our last roadless areas - even if not all of the areas ultimately see road building - should not be done right now and we should conserve more resources and wild spaces for the future. Republicans and Democrats alike, indeed, Americans of all stripes, believe in nature and we must conserve it by preserving the roadless rule. Sincerely, John Tillo 4202 Arizona Circle Ames, IA 50014

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