Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-609056

Opposes rescissionPosted October 7, 2026 On Regulations.gov

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

Topics

What it names

National Forests
Idaho Panhandle National Forests

The comment

I oppose the repeal of the Roadless Rule. I am a scientist, a steward of our natural resources, and a concerned citizen who cares deeply about keeping our public lands intact for generations to come. I particularly care about areas of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, which have large roadless areas. The presence of the Roadless Rule has allowed me to appreciate the beauty of this landscape and many others as I continue to explore this precious land. These areas belong to the American public, not to companies who are interested in profiting off of the removal of the resources they contain. Despite the claims of economic benefits and environmental protection, opening up Wilderness areas to road construction and logging will be harmful to these areas. Human-caused wildfires are much more likely in areas near roads, and we cannot afford to continue having record-breaking fire seasons. The lost tourism economy from visitors to businesses near these areas will harm communities to a degree hat outweighs any increased industry by opening up more of our public lands for logging. Increased motorized activity will be devastating to ecosystems, due to habitat loss, wildlife mortality, degraded water quality, and stripped resources. We have a responsibility to care for our natural resources in a way that ensures their health, so that we may benefit from them for much longer. Keep the Roadless Rule and its significant positive impacts on our National Forest lands.

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