Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-600665

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “negatively impacting wildlife habitat”
    • “among other undesirable things”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “public will be spending more money”
    • “existing routes are in disrepair”
  • Public Land Access Rights
    • “no shortage of existing roadways or means of access”
    • “surprised by the number of roads in a given area that appear to serve no purpose”

The comment

My family and I have spent countless hours on our public lands all over the Western US. I can tell you from first hand experience, that there are no shortage of existing roadways or means of access to this resource. In fact, many places I have explored in California, Oregon, Idaho and elsewhere I am surprised by the number of roads in a given area that appear to serve no purpose. Many of these existing routes are in disrepair and are either in the process of being abandoned or at least show very little use by anyone. My point here is that we have plenty of roadways on public land and it seems hard to understand why more are needed. It is an obvious fact that by changing the roadless rule the public will be spending more money and negatively impacting wildlife habitat among other undesirable things. Please do not change or rescind the roadless rule!

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