I am a resident of northern Wisconsin and am writing to express my concerns about the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Some of my best memories have been made outdoors—hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping with friends. Even more meaningful is sharing these passions with my children. I want them to appreciate the world we live in, understand the value of our forests, waters, and wildlife, and learn to be respectful and responsible stewards of the natural world. I believe conservation is one of the best practices we can pursue for all of God's creations. We are temporary stewards of these resources and have a responsibility to leave them in a condition future generations can enjoy.
The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is an important part of what makes northern Wisconsin special. Its forests, lakes, streams, wetlands, and wildlife provide opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and recreation while supporting healthy ecosystems and clean water.
I am concerned about allowing additional roads into currently roadless areas when we already struggle to maintain the road system we have. Roads are not simply a one-time expense. They require continual maintenance, drainage work, culvert and bridge repairs, storm-damage repairs, and eventual reconstruction or decommissioning. Every additional mile creates a long-term financial and management obligation for the Forest Service and taxpayers.
We should take care of the roads we already have before building more roads into areas that are currently roadless. Not every acre of public land needs motor-vehicle access. Some places should remain relatively undeveloped so wildlife habitat, clean water, hunting, fishing, solitude, and quiet recreation can continue with fewer infrastructure impacts.
I am also concerned about Forest Service staffing and resources. If the agency is already struggling to manage its existing responsibilities, I question whether expanding the road network is an appropriate priority. Before making such a significant change, we should invest in the people and resources needed to care for the forests we already have.
I would rather see resources directed toward conservation practices such as habitat restoration, watershed protection, invasive-species management, wildlife monitoring, appropriate prescribed fire, road maintenance and decommissioning, and other practices that improve forest health and ecological resilience.
I also believe more scientifically rigorous, long-term research is needed to understand how best to manage our forests for the health of wildlife, ecosystems, and society. Forest management decisions can have consequences for decades. Before removing protections for roadless areas, the Forest Service should have strong scientific evidence regarding effects on wildlife habitat, biodiversity, water quality, forest health, recreation, hunting, fishing, and ecological resilience.
Our forests function as interconnected ecosystems. Wildlife, trees, soils, wetlands, streams, insects, fungi, predators, prey, and human communities all affect one another. Management should therefore be based on comprehensive research and long-term monitoring rather than focusing narrowly on timber production, road access, or any single objective.
I support responsible forest management when necessary, appropriately targeted, and supported by credible science. However, there is an important difference between addressing a demonstrated, site-specific need and broadly removing protections from roadless areas.
I ask the Forest Service to carefully consider the cumulative effects of additional roads, including habitat fragmentation, impacts on wildlife and water quality, erosion, recreation, and the long-term cost of maintaining new infrastructure.
Most importantly, I want my children and future generations to have the opportunity to create their own memories in these forests. I want them to hunt, fish, hike, camp, observe wildlife, enjoy clean water, and experience places that remain relatively wild and undeveloped. I also want them to understand that enjoying these resources comes with a responsibility to protect them.
We are temporary stewards of public lands that belong to all Americans. Once a road is constructed into a previously roadless landscape, the resulting changes may be difficult or impossible to reverse.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Forest Service to reconsider rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and retain meaningful protections for inventoried roadless areas.
Responsible stewardship means taking care of what we already have before expanding our footprint. We should invest in conservation, scientific research, Forest Service staffing, and maintenance of existing infrastructure before removing protections that help preserve our remaining roadless landscapes for future generations.
Thank you for considering my comments and including them in the administrative record.