The Roadless Rule Was Built by the People. Now It’s Being Dismantled by the Powerful.

Here's what you need to know as you join the fight to protect it.

Sep 09, 2025

We have an impressive army of Americans who are stepping up to protect the wildlife, higher ideals, and democratic values that our public lands represent. Trump and his ilk are trying one trick after another to strip away policies that shield our wildlands from development and destruction, but their biggest goals are failing. Wildland pros are spotlighting his sneakiest ploys, and the public is responding with an insurmountable pushback.

At every turn, we are challenged to find an innovative approach and a renewed energy to fight their relentless corruption. And miraculously, we do. We keep inspiring each other to persevere and continue to convince new advocates to join the fray. Right now, we need that in our opposition to the Roadless Rule.

So in that spirit, I’d love to share my experience as a researcher of public greenspace, a parks public servant, and an author of greenway and parks reports.

I have spoken with hundreds of people about what makes their community special, especially when it comes to public spaces and support from the government. When cataloging and summarizing their responses, there are a few things I looked for and needed in order for them to contribute to our understanding of a situation. There are also some characteristics that make statements stand out, powerfully communicating a reality in a way that could change hearts and minds.

My hope is that these tips help spur your imagination and bolster your momentum as you craft public comments and send letters to Congress.

Know your stuff, and specify

No one expects you to be an expert in forestry or climate patterns, but if you want to have your comment taken seriously, you should demonstrate a basic understanding of what is directly on the table. In National Forest Service protocol, they specify that only “substantive” comments will be considered. This means that if your comment is purely opinion-based, it might not make it into the database to be analyzed.

For Roadless, there are a few basics that are helpful to know as you form your comment:

Roadless Rule: The 2001 regulation established prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in what turned out to be over 58 million acres of national forest land. It was initiated by the forestry department asking for a moratorium on road construction in national forests because there was not enough money to maintain what roads were already in place.

Roadless was founded on the most public input ever received for a national rule, including over 1.6 million comments. Community members, forest professionals, and environmental groups were among those who shaped its provisions.

Importantly, the rule was an administrative move—meaning, it was not codified into law by Congress. This has made it vulnerable to attacks from opponents. This summer, there was a proposed Roadless Area Conservation Act that would turn the rule into law.

Earth Justice, the organization that has taken a primary role in defending the rule since its inception, has published a detailed timeline of Roadless and its progression.

About the roadless areas:

Protected roadless lands are located all across the US, and they are designated as inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). Over 61 percent of IRAs are located within 100 meters of existing protected national parks and wilderness areas. More than 93 percent are within 10 kilometers.

“These roadless areas buffer wilderness areas, and they’re highly concentrated in these backcountry areas. They provide really important buffers in wilderness and also create stepping stones for wildlife to migrate. So, they really form a large core of our current protections on our forest service lands today.”
-Adam Bronstein, Director of the Western Watersheds Project

Here are the basics of what is on the line:

Endangered species and connected environment: Our forests house plants and animals that are crucial to our country’s environmental integrity. They need healthy homes and safe migration routes, and roads take that away. Immediately, we risk losing the intricate biodiversity that these species bring to the landscape in national forests. Down the line, lack of biodiversity can collapse ecosystems that would hold up everything from healthy air and water to food security and protection from natural disasters.
Outdoor recreation and scenic views: Roadless areas are open to many forms of recreation. According to the Outdoor Alliance, at least 26,647 miles of hiking trails and 19,596 miles of mountain biking trails are at risk of being lost or severely impacted by development activity if the Roadless Rule is rescinded.
Cultural heritage and community wellness: Communities are built economically, culturally, and socially around parks and open space. Outdoor tourism is the main economic activity in some areas around protected green corridors, attracting businesses, residents, and recreationalists, alike. Because both the environmental integrity and the recreational safety of protected lands are at risk, so is the livelihood of nearby residents.
Notably, the Roadless Rule also includes Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, which is home to native tribes who sustain their culture and way of life by living in protected national forest land. In short, rescinding the roadless rule promises to destroy, in innumerable ways, the very tangible systems that many people and their communities depend upon.
And the personal impacts reach beyond those who live directly within or adjacent to protected roadless areas. These lands were set aside for our collective enjoyment, to explore and share with every generation to come. They are a part of all American’s cultural legacy, meant to benefit everyone. Selling them off for a questionable profit that will really only benefit one uber corrupt, ultra-repulsive person is just a slap in the face.
Wildfire prevention: Protected forest areas do have wildfires, but they are a part of forest management that has long been accepted as naturally cyclical and necessary. Periodic burning of understory materials—the kind of forest growth that isn’t logged—makes large, uncontrollable fires more unlikely. When an area is clear cut, the large trees, which are slow burning and fire-resistant forest material, are absent. So, fires burn more intensely and spread faster. There are many competing theories on best forest management, but no credible ones advocate for large-scale timber harvest and the disruptive road development that comes with it.
Economic responsibility: the burden of maintaining roads falls on the shoulders of the National Forest Service. The Roadless Rule was created because we were short 6 BILLION dollars to maintain and repair existing roads. There is no assurance that Trump’s new era of industry executives would be any more responsible in their approach to resource extraction.
Additionally, before Roadless, timber sales on National Forest land were litigated, appealed, and delayed before anything was harvested. The roads that were built to access them were costly, often located on high elevation and steep slopes with eroded soil. In the end, taxpayers ended up paying more to access the timber than the value of the sale.

That’s the general rundown, but as with any discussion on ecosystems, there is a lot of nuance to delve into. You certainly may have experience and expertise that expounds on any or all of these points. Share what you know!

But be careful to stay on point…

Looping in unrelated policies, threats or complaints is a mark against your credibility. For instance, mentioning Epstein, school funding, or occupation of US cities doesn’t have direct relation to what’s going on with this specific policy, so it’s best not to mention them in this narrative.

Say exactly what you want and need

When your answer is coded, words like biking trails, wildlife, community, legacy, or environment might contribute to a tally that gives policy makers an understanding of what the public’s main concerns are.

With a dataset as large as this one, software will likely play a big role in sorting responses and identifying themes. This means that clarity is key. Focus on what main point you want to get across, and state it plainly. Then add illustrative points and descriptions.

Share a story with emotion

I saw, I felt, I met, I overcame, I grew, I had this incredible experience that only I know. If you have a related personal experience available— tell it, and share what it means to you.

These matter because those looking to defend the Roadless Rule need examples of how it impacts people. It is helpful to have illustrative quotes that back up an analysis of what is going on and why. Forest Service employees who are working to save wildland can say, with our words backing them up, that rescinding the Roadless Rule goes against the public’s wishes.

There is no ambiguity or slant in the analysis. Commenters are not paid participants. We’ve got real experiences and expertise to share, and they illustrate the need to keep development out of IRAs.

Be vulnerable

Right now, it’s hard to think of the government as an entity that is on our side, but to write a powerful statement, it helps to assume the best of your reader.

I think you have some of the strongest advocates for conservation and restoration in the country that reside in the Forest Service, and I can tell you with almost moral certainty that this is a rule making the agency itself would not do, if they were not being told to do it.
-CEO Trout Unlimited, and one author of the original Roadless Rule

Imagine that the person reading your comment is a Forest Service employee who is just as passionate about preserving our environment as you are. Think about the possibility of your comment contributing to an update of the rule that would make it even stronger.

Write with joy, hope, imagination—and conviction. Don’t be afraid to share your passion for the great outdoors.

Like voting, write early

Sooner the better. As of now, roughly halfway into the comment period, there are 54,881 submissions. We have no idea if they represent conservation or industry interests, but I’d still call it an encouraging start. Trump and his folks usually prefer for their scheming to fly under the radar.

Let’s turn up the pressure.

We only have 10 days left to submit comments (click here for the form). Write yours and encourage others to do the same. We got this!

With love and hope for the future,

Stephanie

Support from readers like you strengthens my work. If you want to help me fight for truth, land, and local voices—against Trump and others—please become a paid subscriber today:

Hope this helped! How do you feel leaving a public comment or writing a letter to Congress?

Parks People

Discussion about this post