Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-606405

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

  • Recreation Tourism Public Use
    • “rely on public access areas for trail running, hiking, skiing, camping, backpacking”
    • “rescinding the Roadless Rule threatens this access”
    • “phenomenal backcountry recreation, fishing, and hunting opportunities”
  • Forest Management Wildfire
    • “The Roadless Rule already allows for fire mitigation and management tactics”
    • “fires are 4x more likely to ignite on or near roads”
    • “Increasing the road system will only serve to increase the number of fires”
  • Economic Impact Fiscal
    • “rescinding does not make fiscal sense”
    • “cannot maintain the road system currently in place”
    • “We have neither the funds nor the personnel to expand”
  • Wildlife Habitat
    • “conserved some of the best of America's native wildlife habitat”
    • “viewing wildlife”

What it names

Roadless areas
Crazy Mountains

The comment

I oppose the proposal to fully or partially rescind the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. My name is Lindsey Hanna and I am a software engineer in Livingston, Montana. In an ever-increasing digital world, protecting our public lands is of the utmost importance. I rely on public access areas for trail running, hiking, skiing, camping, backpacking, viewing wildlife, hunting, fishing, and just generally appreciating the abundance of amazing opportunities the great outdoors has to offer. I regularly recreate in the Bridger Range, the Crazy Mountains, the Gallatin Range, and the Absorakas, all of which are currently partially or fully protected under the roadless rule. These areas are my access to all the outdoor activities I enjoy, and rescinding the Roadless Rule threatens this access. The Roadless Rule already allows for fire mitigation and management tactics and it's well established fires are 4x more likely to ignite on or near roads. Increasing the road system will only serve to increase the number of fires. Additionally, rescinding does not make fiscal sense. The Forest Service and other public entities already cannot maintain the road system currently in place, and already has an enormous deferred backlog. We have neither the funds nor the personnel to expand and adding new roads will exacerbate these problems. For over two decades the Roadless Rule has conserved some of the best of America's native wildlife habitat, clean water, and phenomenal backcountry recreation, fishing, and hunting opportunities, and it is all of our responsibility to keep doing that for ourselves, our country, and all generations beyond. I 100% support the No Action Alternative to keep the Roadless Rule as it currently stands in place. We need the Roadless Rule, and we need you to keep it in place.

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