The roadless rule currently conserves considerable swaths of the iconic American landscape for recreation, while simultaneously protecting wildlife and irreplaceable forested lands from excessive encroachment from development. I strongly oppose this revision to the roadless rule, which pretends to be in the best interest of fire mitigation, but is truthfully an attempt to dismantle our public lands for private profit. What use is it to cut down and destroy what little woods that remain just to sell them to foreign markets that are oceans away? Further, I have not yet seen the U.S. Forest Service appropriately respond to literature supporting the roadless rule as it currently stands. I would like to see detailed review and thorough response to Kilbride et al. 2026 (DOI: 10.1111/csp2.70411), Cornwall 2026 (DOI: 10.1126/science.aem2421), Olden et al. 2026 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pwat.0000538), and Bishop 2026 (ISSN: 0001-8368).
I believe in the strength of the USFS to protect the places Americans value most, and to serve many interests. I strongly disagree with the idea that these rule changes are in the best interest of the public, who you serve.
We are not so poor as to have to destroy our lands, nor so rich that we can afford to.