Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-600382

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

Tribal Sovereignty
- “stand with the majority of the native tribes in opposition”
- “native tribes in opposition to rescinding”
Wildlife Habitat
- “habitat lost for wildlife”
- “no trees where there should be trees”
Resource Development Extraction
- “intended to open land for tree harvesting”
- “allow these lands and their resources to be sold”
- “Trading our protected land for profit”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “increase of tourism”
- “places for people to visit to hunt, fish, and camp”

The comment

I stand with the majority of the native tribes in opposition to rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. After reviewing all the information provided, it is clear that this change is intended to open land for tree harvesting. The only outcome from removing the rule is roads built where there should not be roads, no trees where there should be trees, and habitat lost for wildlife. While it could be argued that this repeal would lead to an increase of tourism, I counter that we already have places for people to visit to hunt, fish, and camp. The framing of this proposed change is removal of federal control in favor of local control. The true intent of the removal of this rule is to allow these lands and their resources to be sold. This land was protected for a reason. Trading our protected land for profit is undeniably vile. Shame on you if you choose to go through with this.