I strongly oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule. This action would directly degrade one of the most fundamental and unique expressions of American freedom: our privilege to explore some of the few remaining wild areas in our country.
I am an avid climber, trail runner, and backpacker on public lands throughout the US. Although I live in Colorado, which is fortunate enough to have state protections, I recreate around Millcreek Canyon and the Wasatch Range in Utah, the Bridger-Teton National forest is an extremely special place for me and my family, I've hiked extensively throughout the North and Central Cascades in Washington, and just this spring I spent a week camping and climbing throughout the Gila National Forest in New Mexico.
Sometimes freedom comes through restraint. Areas without modern development allow for a unique, key human experience. Preserving the wild backcountry for today's Americans and future generations is critical for our spirit and well-being. An area without modern development allows us to be free. It is the truest expression of liberty.
Rescinding the Roadless Rule would needlessly impinge upon this freedom that has been preserved for so many Americans. The science does not show that more roads would lessen wildfire danger. In fact, studies suggest that roads directly increase the threat. And land managers already face a massive, costly backlog (over $6 billion) in maintaining the roads they already have. In the meantime, it would put additional negative pressure on wildlife already facing threats from climate change and development, threaten water quality for animals and humans alike, and more.
The fact that the US still has these wild, untouched areas is extremely unique. Most countries do not. We are so lucky, and it's truly part of what makes America great. It just takes restraint to keep it that way. So for these reasons, I oppose fully or partially rescinding the Roadless Rule. I support the No Action Alternative.