What we can learn from the Roadless Rule public comments

October 30, 2026-

In August of this year, a forty-five day public comment period opened on the draft environmental impact statement for the Trump Administration’s proposed rule to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Over 1 million people participated in the comment period, generating over 390,000 submissions and 81,000 unique comments. We can learn a lot from them: not only from the sheer volume of people who participated, but from what they had to say about our public lands and wild places.

Roadless.org, a coalition of conservation organizations, completed an in-depth analysis of the comments, finding that 97% of comments opposed rescission of the Roadless Rule, 2% supported rescission, and <1% were neutral or unclear. It’s worth noting that when the Roadless Rule was first proposed 25 years ago and a similar public comment period was held, about 95% of the 1.6 million comments supported the rule, suggesting that it has lived up to its original promise for many.

Statistically, the top five topics mentioned in comments were: environmental protection and biodiversity; recreation, tourism, and public use; water quality and quantity; wildlife habitat; and forest management and wildfire. None of those come as a surprise in arguments about the importance of protecting roadless areas. But what was most striking when reading through comments was what the arguments were built on. They speak about experiences in these places, shared across generations, and the impact they have had on people from all walks of life. They reflect heritage and traditions passed down through families and cultures. They hold a remarkable amount of hope and continued trust in a shared vision for the future of our planet. They value the common good over the profit of the few. They speak up for all life, not just human life. They trust in science. They revere beauty and something greater than ourselves.

We can also learn a great deal from comments in favor of opening up roadless areas. While some represent industry interests, many come from people with a deep connection to these lands. Some share the experiences of people with disabilities who are limited in how they can access public lands. Some point to communities, many of them Native, who rely on these lands for subsistence uses and rural economies. Others reflect the fears of communities increasingly impacted by wildfires. All of these voices should be welcomed and represented in decision-making for our public lands.

While it’s yet to be seen how these comments will be reflected in the fate of the Roadless Rule, they’ve provided an important opportunity for us to take a moment to listen to our neighbors and better understand our community.