Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-574954

Opposes rescissionPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “preserving large, intact habitats for fish and game”
    • “habitat improvement projects”
    • “best habitat”
  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “solitude, recreation, and hunting and fishing opportunities”
    • “lifelong West Virginia hunter and outdoorsman”
    • “extensive experience in our states roadless areas”

What it names

Roadless areas
East ForkGlady ForkLittle MountainMiddle MountainSeneca Creek

The comment

I would like to comment against the proposed removal of the Roadless Rule. I am a lifelong West Virginia hunter and outdoorsman and I have extensive experience in our states roadless areas. I think the Roadless Rule as-is provides a balance between allowing access for fire suppression or habitat improvement projects while preserving large, intact habitats for fish and game, which are increasingly rare in 2026. I have been to many of West Virginia's Roadless Areas including Seneca Creek, North Fork Mountain, Tea Creek, Middle Mountain, East Fork Greenbrier, Canaan, Glady Fork, and Little Mountain. These areas represent the some of the best habitat, solitude, recreation, and hunting and fishing opportunities in West Virginia. Please continue to support the Roadless Rule. Thank 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