I favor reduced government regulations with regard to businesses, but I am strongly opposed to this proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule. I am a resident of Sacramento California, where I retired 5 years ago to enjoy the outdoors including national forest lands. Those National Forest lands are especially important to me because we can take our dog with us when hiking or camping. That's not allowed in the vast majority of National or State Parks. I chose to live near the Sierra Nevada and multiple national forests from El Dorado National Forest in the south through Tahoe NF to Plumas NF north of Lake Tahoe. But I am within fairly easy driving distance of Inyo NF to the southeast, and Klamath, Shasta Trinity and Six Rivers NF's in the northern part of the state. In the former 3 NF's I see this rescission fragmenting beautiful forest lands that will devalue the forests for biking, fishing, hiking and hunting alike. At the same time easier access for people from an expanded road system (not necessarily loggers and others) will increase the likelihood of increased fire danger. But in the latter four forests the even higher percentage of areas being proposed to allow new roads goes beyond devaluing the forest and approaches fragmenting them into a small number of microforests that destroy the existing wilderness. This does not seem well thought out and has no new budget for supporting an even larger road system (neither construction or maintenance). It is also likely to shift current control from a single government unit to conflicting state and local jurisdictions. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the proposal to rescind the 2001 Roadless Rule.