Thoughts on ending the Roadless Rule? This would effect nearly 60 million acres of NFS managed lands in the US. Public comments end Friday.

[-]

CharAznableLoNZ@reddit

Both oregon and washington are pretty left leaning, they'll enact copycat laws to do the same thing if it gets rescinded federally. I wouldn't be surprised if they do it more out of spite to the current presidency than to help keep nature safe.

[-]

CompetitiveAppeal663@reddit

This is absolutely true for WA and OR….. I do worry a lot about places like Utah though….they will do the opposite and destroy nature to boot lick it his admin

[-]

akswitchcouple@reddit

Same with Alaska, they will rubber stamp anything the fed wants, we're cooked up here.

[-]

CompetitiveAppeal663@reddit

So fucked

[-]

got-99-usernames@reddit

Enjoy your public land while it still exists.

[-]

Old_Court_8169@reddit

Can't really enjoy them without being able to get to them.

[-]

chef_mans@reddit

...what public lands can't you get to?

[-]

Old_Court_8169@reddit

Look up "land locked public lands" and "corner crossing".

In addition there are many millions of people who are not able to access public lands by backpacking, horseback, or other non-motorized methods. The roadless rules just keep those areas inaccessible to most people.

[-]

chef_mans@reddit

Corner crossing was ruled legal earlier this year, and “not having roads in nature is ableist” is certainly an opinion

[-]

stilmattwell@reddit

Ending the roadless rule is not good. Not good at all.

[-]

whabt@reddit

But how will the logging and mining trucks be able to take away the forest so it can be sold? Think of the shareholders!

(sarcasm, of course)

[-]

stilmattwell@reddit

Oh man! How could I be so insensitive?! I completely forgot about all those money trees that aren’t accessible to people without 4 wheels! Thanks for reminding me. Sheesh.

[-]

Speedy_SpeedBoi@reddit (OP)

Agreed, I'm done trying to be neutral. Already submitted my comments but it feels like pissing into the wind with this administration trying something like this every month.

[-]

MDPeasant@reddit

Can you share what you commented? I am trying to comment but I'm not going to have time today to write up something decent.

[-]

atlien0255@reddit

Same. So tired of their bullshit.

[-]

Nice_Wafer_9451@reddit

I love overlanding in my Tacoma, but also love getting to the end of the road and leaving my truck behind. Here is the comment I posted on the gov website:

As a taxpaying citizen who has lived in the western states of Utah, Arizona, Colorado and currently New Mexico, I oppose rescinding the roadless rule on our taxpayer-supported public lands. The USA is a vast land mass, with extensive resources still available for development, or moving towards renewable and sustainable use, such as in areas historically and currently used for timber harvest. There is no need to open up roadless areas, currently a very small portion of our total landmass, to development. I have personally explored many of these areas on foot, and had life-changing experiences that have strengthened my ability to be a productive citizen, family man, and a better human being. Roadless areas are a valuable resource in themselves, which will be lost forever if opened up to development. Edward Abbey was certainly no politically correct shrinking violet, and he said it well: "Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread."

[-]

ChillnScott@reddit

Does anyone have any personal experiences about why rescinding this rule would be bad? I lived near Flagstaff, AZ for a couple years and loved exploring all the fire roads through the forests. Elk, bear, cougars didn't seem to have any problems migrating. I generally support keeping our wilderness pristine, but would love to hear more.

[-]

EmaNymtonsi@reddit

Normal people aren't able to make such a conclusion from personal experience, it takes actual research. "Crossings" by Ben Goldfarb does a good job collecting all those decades of professional research and distilling it into something easily understandable and interesting.

[-]

iNapkin66@reddit

This doesn't make new fire roads for us to use. This would allow logging companies to carve out new roads, log out the forests, and then let the roads and mountain side erode away. What's left is still without a road, but the habitat is ruined.

They already do this, but they have to do it as patchwork with a forest manager prescribing where they can log each time. This doesnt work great, but it allows for some regrowth from the surrounding forest rather than clearcutting an entire mountain. Even with these grids, its amazing how much topsoil is eroded away and realistically you're looking at thousands of years for that section to fully recover, but you at least get some habitat restored in a decade. Allowing unfettered logging means you won't see any habitat restoration in our lifetime.

[-]

ChillnScott@reddit

Thanks. I submitted my comments this morning opposing rescinding the roadless rule.

[-]

Old_Court_8169@reddit

Changing the roadless rule does not change the requirements for logging on public lands.

[-]

Old_Court_8169@reddit

I agree.

[-]

CompetitiveAppeal663@reddit

So sad….we have precious few areas left in the whole country without roads….once a road is built, it will be there forever and forever change that landscape. Os It really worth it for a mining company or timber exec to get more rich by destroying something that the people of the U.S. own?? I love Overlanding and love being in my truck and taking the road (much) less traveled….but the real beauty in these experiences is to get to where the road stops, then wander.

[-]

JackfruitNo2854@reddit

Sorry I’m kinda lost and forgive me because I’m new to overlanding but isn’t traveling on roads preferable? Like i thought actually going off the road/trail was frowned upon. When people go off trail to get to places it causes much more significant damage to the landscape and ecosystem. Shouldn’t we be for roads and trails that lead to these places we like to camp at?

[-]

Much-Mycologist2298@reddit

Fires happen where actual roads are.

[-]

Old_Court_8169@reddit

Most fires happen from lightening.

[-]

EmaNymtonsi@reddit

Not remotely close to true. The vast majority, like 90%, are started by humans and the overwhelming majority, like 90% again, of those are started within a few feet of a road.

https://www.pacificbio.org/publications/wildfire_studies/Roads_And_Wildfires_2007.pdf

You too u/JackfruitNo2854

[-]

JackfruitNo2854@reddit

Roads are literally fire breaks and allow fire crews to access new areas

[-]

Draymond_Purple@reddit

So... you're camping at spots that have no trail to get to them?

I don't think that's what you mean but that's what you said

Regardless, to clarify for you, it's the other way around. There are plenty of roads to wild places to camp.

Where there's no roads should stay wild with no roads

[-]

desertSkateRatt@reddit

Thats the opposite of what this is about:

...the Trump administration moves to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, known as the roadless rule, created under former President Bill Clinton.

This is deregulation to open up previously untouched areas to have roads clear cut, bulldozed and dynamited to make way for roads that would only serve the timber and mining industries.

This would destroy habitats all over and likely close off access to other trails with new gates being installed.

[-]

JackfruitNo2854@reddit

Logging roads are what the vast majority of us use to access forest lands. Without logging roads lots of places we go to wouldn’t be accessible.

[-]

iNapkin66@reddit

Theyre not going to make nice isolated logging roads and then maintain them. Theyre going to make a spiderweb of roads all over a mountain that they're clearcutting. Then they'll abandon them and let the winter rain wash away all the newly loosened topsoil.

Its not a win for offroaders or overlanding. It just destroys places without actually giving us a bunch of nice access roads.

[-]

lepowski@reddit

I think you misunderstood, he’s talking about driving to where the road stops, and then exploring the roadless area on foot (or via horse or other non-vehicular travel)

[-]

cascadianpatriot@reddit

There are plenty of roads. What this does is destroy the habitats that make it worth going. This is all for timber and mining. It will also increase fires. The overwhelming percentage of fires are caused by people on roads. Thanks for asking. I am a biologist and this is directly related to much of my work. I can give you more detail if you want, but I’m drinking beer right now.

[-]

atlien0255@reddit

We already can’t properly maintain the usfs and blm roads we have, this is 100% a timber co grab and it’s bullshit. Ugh.

[-]

Old_Court_8169@reddit

Why should USFS and BLM roads be maintained? To what standards? lol.

[-]

atlien0255@reddit

What’s the point of a road if it’s unusable? I’m not sure I’m understanding your question.

[-]

lazy_legs@reddit

Edward Abbey has written multiple books detailing exactly how I feel about this bullshit

[-]

211logos@reddit

Good article.

I have some issues with the existing rule, but no way in hell I trust the Republicans these days to take a balanced approach to this. The bumbling idiots and grifters they've got in charge make the old administration's deep staters look like geniuses by comparison. It's not like the Republican leadership is full of outdoors people...look at 'em.

My friends offroad, hunt, climb, backpack, etc. And while there are plenty of conflicts among all those groups I think overall it's been working and would work with some tweaks. But this isn't a tweak; it's a sell out.

[-]

DisturbedMagg0t@reddit

Unfortunately, I think we all know how this is going to go. Such a sad loss losing everything to something so stupid

[-]

ToneBalone25@reddit

Terrible idea. The opposing voices in this are timber associations, by the way.

And I hate to be a pessimist but the trump admin is gonna go through with this regardless of public comments. SCOTUS has been giving him full deference.

[-]

ToneBalone25@reddit

To add: not trying to get political

[-]

Draymond_Purple@reddit

I mean, it is political though, and in this context that's not a bad thing

Government policy significantly affects our hobby, that's just what it is

[-]

steggun_cinargo@reddit

It sucks..going to open up lots of pristine sites to industry where they will ruin them.

[-]

CalifOregonia@reddit

Wes Siler has been covering this. Usually the first one to sound the alarm bells when something really bad is coming down the political pipeline. He’s much less concerned about this one, mainly because industry is not quick to move on this kind of thing.

[-]

pariah1984@reddit

I’ve been looking around for some non-partisan information on this, which is a hard thing to find on any topic these days!

I’m still on that hunt, but this particular link gave me some interesting insight from folks that have been involved on the ground for decades, particularly in the responses to the original posting.

It’s all worth a read if you take the time, and I’m also quite open to other well-informed non-partisan suggestions for info on this situation!

https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/06/24/the-facts-about-rescinding-rules-and-some-other-roadless-ruminations/

[-]

5olArchitect@reddit

Brosky, just read the facts and look them up. You don’t have to purge your feed of any news with a bias.

[-]

pariah1984@reddit

That is precisely what I am attempting to do, is read the facts.

And yeah, to get the real facts these days you really have to go out of your way to purge all bias, on any given topic, which is becoming increasingly difficult. I know many will read my words and automatically assume I’m against what’s being said here. I’m not, I just want all the facts. We all should. Did you read what I linked? Also, after some more digging I found another good link I’ll add above.

[-]