“eliminating the Roadless Rule is not necessary to accomplish responsible forest management”
“existing rule provides flexibility for appropriate management”
The comment
I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule and to urge the U.S. Forest Service to retain these important protections.
Protecting wild places is both personally and professionally important to me. I spent years working as a wilderness and nature guide, and today I work in the nature-based travel industry. I also spend much of my personal time hiking, backpacking, paddling, camping, and exploring public lands with my family. These experiences have given me a deep appreciation for just how valuable intact, undeveloped landscapes are, and how difficult they are to get back once they are lost.
Roadless areas protect more than scenery. They provide connected wildlife habitat, safeguard watersheds, support biodiversity, and give people the increasingly rare opportunity to experience places that still feel genuinely wild.
I understand that our national forests need to be actively and thoughtfully managed, particularly as communities face wildfire risk. But eliminating the Roadless Rule is not necessary to accomplish responsible forest management. The existing rule provides flexibility for appropriate management when it is truly needed, while maintaining an important baseline of protection for these landscapes.
I am especially concerned about the long-term consequences of opening currently roadless areas to additional road construction and development. A road may seem like an individual management decision, but its effects extend far beyond its footprint. Roads fragment habitat, increase human access and disturbance, can contribute to erosion and invasive species, and create ongoing maintenance obligations. Most importantly, once a roadless landscape has been fragmented, we cannot simply recreate what was there before.
Through my career in nature-based travel, I have also seen firsthand that protecting wild places and supporting local economies are not opposing goals. Intact landscapes support guides, outfitters, gateway communities, and countless other businesses connected to outdoor recreation and tourism. People travel from around the country and around the world specifically because America still has extraordinary wild landscapes to experience.
Now that I have a young son, I think about this from another perspective as well. I want him to grow up with opportunities to experience truly wild places, not simply hear stories about landscapes that previous generations had the opportunity to enjoy. Public lands are an inheritance we share, and I believe we have a responsibility to think beyond their immediate use and consider what we are leaving for the people who come after us.
There will always be pressure to find new uses for undeveloped land. There will not always be opportunities to protect large, intact landscapes. Keeping these places roadless today preserves options for future generations. Developing them takes those options away.
Please maintain the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule and select an alternative that preserves strong, durable protections for America's inventoried roadless areas rather than rescinding the rule.
Thank you for considering my comments.