I am a member of the public who has spent over a year volunteering on public lands and who has hiked thousands of backcountry miles, including the entire Pacific Crest Trail and Colorado Trail. I have deep experience specifically in Alaska, the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and Lassen National Forest. I oppose the recission of Roadless Rule protections for several reasons. First and foremost, the country already has more forest roads than we can afford to maintain. As of 2023 - prior to recent Forest Service budget and staffing cuts - there was a backlog of $8.6 billion in deferred maintenance. I've hiked and attempted to drive on many miles of existing "road" that no longer accessible except to brave drivers with rugged vehicles, saws, and winches. Allowing more roads would only exacerbate this issue. Second, there is sufficient existing road coverage. Excluding Alaska, only about 25% of the acreage in the National Forests of the continental US is currently roadless; there is not a great enough economic need to erode that percentage further. (Alaska should perhaps be a special case, since it is around 2/3 roadless and since its tribal corporations have more land management rights.) Third, the Roadless Rule has already withstood many legal battles and proven its public support through over a million positive public comments when it was first created. Fourth, changes to these rules on federal land - owned by ALL members of the public - would have disproportionate impact on different communities. Eastern states would see little impact, but resource extraction industries in certain western states would accrue huge benefit. Fifth, this change would cost taxpayers money in a time when the federal government is already wildly overspending. Since natural resource sales from these lands are highly subsidized, more sales would mean more subsidies paid by federal taxpayers.
It is hard for me to understand why anyone except timber harvesters, miners, and their friends would want this!