I'm opposed to the proposed rescission of the Roadless Rule.
Among the affected areas, I have hiked and camped in the Lewis and Clark National Forest and the Flathead National Forest in Montana.
While destroying and diminishing opportunities for public recreation such as hiking and camping. The road building, resultant logging and other activities allowed through the proposed rescission will destroy or significantly impact habitat for federally listed species including Grizzily Bear, Canada Linx, Bull Trout and Gray Wolf. Game and non-game species will also suffer significant direct and indirect negative impacts.
I have also hiked and camped in national forests in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming which will experience similar losses of public recreation opportunities along with the habitat destruction and degradation to federally listed species as well as other non-game and game species described in the previous paragraph.
The 2001 Roadless Rule should stay in place!
Thank you
The Forest Service should keep the Roadless Rule intact exactly as it is. Do not weaken or repeal this critical policy.
National forests are the heart of our public lands. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects some of the wildest forests we have left, forests that protect critical wildlife habitat and drinking water for millions. Revoking the Roadless Rule puts landscapes, wildlife, and communities at risk.
Not only is the Roadless Rule good policy, it's also wildly popular across the country, with over 600,000 people submitting comments to the US Forest Service last year in support of keeping the rule in place. And more than 20 years ago, the American people overwhelmingly called for our national forests to be protected for future generations. Revoking the Roadless Rule would destroy the natural inheritance we leave for our children.