Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-571282

Opposes rescissionPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Environmental Protection Biodiversity
    • “strongly opposed to the elimination of the roadless rule”
    • “protected is because they have things like nowhere else”
    • “More roads is not the answer to the problems of public lands”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “walking distance from the designated Weminuche Wildnerness”
    • “overwhelmingly popular with the people who live in and visit these places”
    • “surrounding communities”
  • Resource Development Extraction
    • “plenty of roads for resource extraction”
    • “More roads means more logistical, maintenance, and pollution problems”

What it names

National Forests
Coconino National ForestRio Grande National Forest

The comment

I am strongly opposed to the elimination of the roadless rule on public lands. I have lived in the Rio Grande National Forest, walking distance from the designated Weminuche Wildnerness, as well as the Coconino National Forest. There are already plenty of roads for resource extraction and recreation. More roads means more logistical, maintenance, and pollution problems. The reason these lands are protected is because they have things like nowhere else. More roads is not the answer to the problems of public lands. This was one of the most commented on and supported rules when it was proposed about twenty years ago. Do not change the rule now. It is still overwhelmingly popular with the people who live in and visit these places and surrounding communities.

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