Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-572748

Opposes rescissionPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

What it names

National Forests
Carson National Forest

The comment

Our National Forests provide clean drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, beautiful places to hike and camp, and some of our nation’s last stands of old growth forest. My community knows this firsthand because we’re lucky enough to live near Carson National Forest. Right now, the Forest Service is trying to roll back protections for some of our best and last remaining forested areas by getting rid of the “Roadless Rule”. This Rule, created in 2001, restricted expensive roadbuilding in these last refuges for water and wildlife. Is this what we need now – fewer protected forest areas? The Forest Service already manages a road system that is over seven times larger than the Interstate Highway System! Should taxpayers be on the hook to build more expensive roads that damage our water, wildlife, and outdoors? The Forest Service and our elected officials need to hear that building more roads is the wrong direction, and trying to sneak this massive rule change through without public meetings is cowardly and wrong. This summer was extremely dry in the Southwest and many animals have been suffering, especially the bears. We have already encroached enough into their habitat. We do not need more access. We need to maintain the road access that is already in place. Just because a rapist wants to rape our forest resources doesn't mean you men in power should let him. It makes you complicit in the rape. I do not support ending the roadless rule. And neither should you.

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