Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-544250

Opposes rescissionPosted October 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

Wildlife Habitat
- “animals need a home where they can stay safe”
- “humans won't disturb them”
- “protect wildlife habitat”
Forest Management Wildfire
- “more of a fire risk if we make roads”
- “humans start wildfires”
- “temporary roads for wildfire suppression be closed after use”
- “will not improve the wildfire situation”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “spend a lot of time in national forests”
- “enjoy nature”
- “National Forests are beautiful”

What it names

National Forests: Santa Fe National Forest

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 New Mexico and I am 10 years old. I spend a lot of time in national forests. My favorite place to be is on a rock in a forest as the sun comes up, watching the grass steaming. I am attaching a picture of me and my small cousin backpacking in the Santa Fe National Forest two weeks ago. I am commenting to oppose the removal of the Roadless Rule. I think the Roadless Rule should remain because the animals need a home where they can stay safe, that way humans won’t disturb them. There will be more of a fire risk if we make roads than if we don’t because humans start wildfires. There are already ways to get out into places where the Roadless Rule applies if someone wants to enjoy nature. The Forest Service already has the ability to make roads in emergencies such as wildfires. I recommend that temporary roads for wildfire suppression be closed after use. I think National Forests are beautiful and it is a terrible idea to remove the Roadless Rule because it will not improve the wildfire situation.