Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-582862

Opposes rescissionPosted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

The comment

Do not get rid of the Roadless Rule! Our forests have suffered enough. As a person who recreates and lives near the Sierra and Inyo national forests, is a wildlife artist, and local organizer I support Alternative 1: The “No action alternative” because we should keep the Roadless Rule intact. I am a frequent camper in these forests, lead low cost group photography trips there (as an event coordinator for the Central Valley Camera Club), and spend money in the communities nearby at restaurants and small businesses. I fish the waters, hike the trails, and travel the already plentiful existing roads. We need the roadless areas to protect our fish species, native plant life, drinking water and to prevent even more out of control forest fires. Our California Native tribes also have a right to continue their cultural practices in said lands. Please move forward with the No Action Alternative 1: Keep the Roadless Rule intact. Sincerely, Tess McClellan Fresno, CA 93704

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