Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-571721

Opposes rescissionPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “Tourism is a big part of that”
- “People will not come here if our forests are given over to extractive industries”
- “harm our local economy”
Environmental Protection Biodiversity
- “WILDFIRES ARE 5 TIMES MORE LIKELY IN AREAS WITH ROADS THAN IN ROADLESS AREAS”
- “KEEP THE ROADLESS RULE IN PLACE”
- “LEAVE THE ROADLESS RULE ALONE”
Economic Impact Fiscal
- “diversify our economy from cattle and mining”
- “enriching corporations that care nothing for local conditions”
- “harm our local economy”

What it names

National Forests: Gila National Forest

The comment

WILDFIRES ARE 5 TIMES MORE LIKELY IN AREAS WITH ROADS THAN IN ROADLESS AREAS. KEEP THE ROADLESS RULE IN PLACE! We live in Silver City, close to the Gila National Forest and the wilderness area. We are trying hard to diversify our economy from cattle and mining. Tourism is a big part of that. People will not come here if our forests are given over to extractive industries. Rescinding the roadless rule will harm our local economy while enriching corporations that care nothing for local conditions. PLEASE! LEAVE THE ROADLESS RULE ALONE!