The Roadless Rule Needs Your Help

Public comment open until September 19th.

************

Today, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that her department, which oversees the U.S. Forest Service, will continue the process to rescind the ultra-popular Roadless Rule of 2001.

If you don't know what this means, here's a brief summary:

The Roadless Rule, formally known as the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, was adopted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2001—after overwhelmingly positive feedback from the American public—to protect nearly 58 million acres of national forest land from intrusive road building and other development.

These lands, known as “inventoried roadless areas,” are some of the most pristine stretches of public land in the country, often serving as critical wildlife habitat and crucial sources of clean water.

The rule generally prohibits road construction and timber harvesting in these areas, aiming to preserve their ecological integrity, recreational opportunities, and natural beauty. However, the rule does allow for limited, temporary road building in order to prevent or fight fires.

While roadless areas are not officially designated wilderness areas, they do essentially mimic them.

Rescinding the Roadless Rule would open up vast swaths of national forests to habitat fragmentation, development, logging, and increased wildfire risk.

The public comment period is open and will remain open until September 19.

Back in June, all kinds of public lands lovers joined forces and got rid of Mike Lee's absurd public lands sales proposal. This is our next major fight.

This is the next big fight to save our public lands—it truly is a massive one—and it will require the same amount of pressure and pushback, relentless flooding of Congresspeople's inboxes and unwavering opposition to this extremely unpopular move by the Agriculture Department.

I will be writing about this extensively and in detail, probably repetitively as I did in June, because this stuff does require us all to step up.

This was officially announced today, but already, conservation associations, hunting organizations, fish conservation groups, and environmental organizations have been all over social media opposing this.

(Once again, it's the (usually conservative-voting) rural hunters and anglers who have the most to lose if the Roadless Rule does get rescinded. They're going to be insanely vocal about this in the next several weeks, which I will absolutely share here.)

To be completely clear: this is an American issue. No one who actually uses our public lands wants this to happen.

Secretary Rollins Opens Next Step in the Roadless Rule Rescission | Home https://share.google/o6IMzQFHCYu3SS0i4

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

How to submit a comment

You can submit your comments to the USDA through the Federal Register, which is where the official Notice of Intent will be published on August 29, 2025.

Instructions for electronic submission and postal service are expected to be available on the US Forest Service website once the notice is published.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Post the link for comment her when it's active.

As a mountain biker, I'd be a lot more excited to save this rule if the wilderness groups hadn't used it as a tool to shut me out of 1000's of miles of trail in areas that aren't designated Wilderness. Maybe if the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and others hadn't been so effective in abusing the intent behind this rule, it wouldn't be on the chopping block now.

Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

My thoughts are similar to Toast. This rule, while good intentioned, provided an end around to wilderness designations that was abused heavily. Just go through the proper wilderness designation if you want to keep them pristine.

Well unfortunately our current admin wants to gut the rule so they can gut the wilderness. Sure it could use fixing and if we had a different (sane) admin it would be different.

So a question. How many 1000s miles of wilderness do to have left to ride on and how many do you need

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

As a mountain biker, I'd be a lot more excited to save this rule if the wilderness groups hadn't used it as a tool to shut me out of 1000's of miles of trail in areas that aren't designated Wilderness. Maybe if the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and others hadn't been so effective in abusing the intent behind this rule, it wouldn't be on the chopping block now.

Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

---

Where has the Roadless Rule closed non-wilderness areas to Biking? I think that you are mistaken. The Wilderness Act does ban bikes but I never heard of the Roadless Rule applying.

Selfishly, as someone who really enjoys non-technical riding on forest service/prior logging roads, I have mixed feelings about roadless rulings. Much of the recreation many of us enjoy is a result of prior mining/logging roads throughout the mountains in the west. Do we need more of these roads? Probably not. But without prior industry,. many of our recreation opportunities would look much different.

And how might future industry affect your recreation opportunities? Presumably you prefer riding in standing forests? I simply don't trust this admin to act with any sort of concern for outdoor recreation, this is purely a cash grab to fund their tax cuts for the ultra rich and paramilitary force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Nuclear Option

Where has the Roadless Rule closed non-wilderness areas to Biking? I think that you are mistaken. The Wilderness Act does ban bikes but I never heard of the Roadless Rule applying.

---

In (almost) every "wilderness study area" and "recommended wilderness area." Those are not designated wilderness areas, they do not have the full breadth of protections that Wilderness has, yet most of those areas ban any wheeled vehicle. Over the last two decades, the various wilderness groups mounted an aggressive campaign to get any inventoried roadless area designated as something akin to wilderness lite. In a lot of areas, this cut off most of the backcountry access to any wheeled vehicle.




























Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

Jackattack,

Forest service just logged a couple areas I like to ride locally in Montana, and honestly, it looks great. It was selective in nature, and they regraded the road after completion. When I lived in SE Alaska, the communities used the limited logging roads for hunting and other recreation. On Prince of Wales Island in AK, there are a lot of logging roads. It's one of the few areas in SE AK with extensive logging roads, or any roads for that matter, it's a big deal for hunting/hunting tourism. In Juneau they made a new five mile dirt road that was also a huge deal for more nordic skiing terrain for a community that otherwise only has very few roads.

So in the places I've lived, I've benefited from historic roads, and development of new roads, from prior industry.

Colorado is similar, all the old mining roads are a huge deal for off road community, winter access, etc. It's hard to ignore the current benefits from prior industry.

But again, do we need more? The answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackattack

And how might future industry affect your recreation opportunities? Presumably you prefer riding in standing forests? I simply don't trust this admin to act with any sort of concern for outdoor recreation, this is purely a cash grab to fund their tax cuts for the ultra rich and paramilitary force.

---

I do enjoy riding my bike in standing forests. But ironically, most of the good bike trails in my area are in areas that get a lot of logging. Because the roadless rule has effectively banned bikes from most of the areas near me that don't get logged. But you're right. I certainly don't trust this administration either. Well, I guess technically I trust them to do the shittiest possible thing in the worst way possible.

That said, at least in my neck of the woods, I'm skeptical that the end of the roadless rule would have much practical effect. As it stands, timber sales offered by the forest service are going without bids - lumber prices are too low, and the logging companies aren't bidding on projects, especially more remote ones. I don't see how a logging project in a (former) IRA that would involve a bunch of (expensive) road building is going to be attractive to anyone. And maybe I'm naive in this regard, but I don't see the roadless rule as being determinative of whether a mining project moves foward. Considering the scale of any modern mining project, the IRA is just one of many, many speed bumps along the way to approval. And realistically, it's not a particularly large hurdle for a multi billion dollar project.

Like toast said, the bureaucratic overreach was extreme. No reason historic recreation could not continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wooley12

So a question. How many 1000s miles of wilderness do to have left to ride on and how many do you need

---

Worst part is when a couple miles of trail crosses a IRA or WSA and so entire trail gets closed. And then no longer maintained. I'm looking at this as one of the few potential positives of the admin.

A few examples Montana examples:
CDT in Centennial mtns
Deadman loop, Italian peaks
Tons of trails in Pioneer mtns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

In (almost) every "wilderness study area" and "recommended wilderness area." Those are not designated wilderness areas, they do not have the full breadth of protections that Wilderness has, yet most of those areas ban any wheeled vehicle. Over the last two decades, the various wilderness groups mounted an aggressive campaign to get any inventoried roadless area designated as something akin to wilderness lite. In a lot of areas, this cut off most of the backcountry access to any wheeled vehicle.

Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

---

I do not believe that the Roadless Rule is how they have banned bikes in such wilderness or potential wilderness areas. The roadless rule addresses the building of new roads, not bikes or means of travel.

I don’t necessarily disagree in wanting more trails for bike, just blaming rhe Roadless Rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Nuclear Option

I do not believe that the Roadless Rule is how they have banned bikes in such wilderness or potential wilderness areas. The roadless rule addresses the building of new roads, not bikes or means of travel. I don’t necessarily disagree in wanting more trails for bike, just blaming rhe Roadless Rule.

---

The roadless rule isn't "how they banned bikes" but it created vast stretches of land that were now protected from development that was then used by wilderness advocates to create wilderness study areas that banned bikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Nuclear Option

I do not believe that the Roadless Rule is how they have banned bikes in such wilderness or potential wilderness areas. The roadless rule addresses the building of new roads, not bikes or means of travel.

I don’t necessarily disagree in wanting more trails for bike, just blaming rhe Roadless Rule.

---

Like Danno said, the bans didn't come directly from the roadless rule. But a stated goal of several wilderness groups was to turn all IRA's into recommended wilderness. Which they had considerable success doing. So the roadless rule was the impetus for banning wheeled vehicles.





Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

I asked ChatGPT to explain Montana examples to me.


“1. Hyalite–Porcupine–Buffalo Horn WSA (Gallatin National Forest)
The Gallatin National Forest issued a travel plan that initially allowed mountain bikes on roughly 170 miles of trails. After a court ruling in 2010, bike access was sharply reduced—motorized use dropped to about 20 miles, and mountain biking to about 40 miles of trails
Bella Online
.
This was enforced as an interim summer use plan, pending a possible appeal or Congressional action
Bella Online
.
2. Bitterroot National Forest WSAs (Blue Joint & Sapphire)
Under the Montana Wilderness Study Area Act of 1977, WSAs like Blue Joint and Sapphire must be managed to retain their wilderness character and potential for full Wilderness designation
Singletracks Mountain Bike News
thewildlifenews.com
.
Consequently, the Forest Service terminated all mechanical access, including mountain biking, to uphold that mandate
thewildlifenews.com
.
The decision was challenged through litigation by bike, motorized, and snowmobile groups, but a federal court upheld the ban in 2018
WildEarth Guardians
.
3. Broader Context & Agency Strategy
The Forest Service sometimes designates areas like WSAs, Recommended Wilderness Areas (RWAs), or Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). Mountain bikes are frequently banned in these, even though they're not formal Wilderness, because agencies argue they must be managed to avoid impairing potential future Wilderness values
Singletracks Mountain Bike News
.
In the Custer-Gallatin National Forest, bike access around Lionhead was protected via a newer concept: Recreation Emphasis Areas, which explicitly preserve access for mountain biking amid forest planning
https://www.imba.com
.
Real-World Voices
From the Bitterroot area battlefield:
“The Forest Service is obligated to maintain ‘wilderness characteristics’… they had to exclude mechanical access.”
— Advocacy observers responding to Bitterroot WSA closures
thewildlifenews.com
About Gallatin’s bike access cuts:
The public comment process and legal pressure pushed the Forest Service to slash bike access from hundreds of miles of trails in the WSA
Freehub Magazine
.

In Summary
In Montana, closure of mountain bike access in WSAs usually arises from:
Forest Service policy applying the “non-impairment” standard of FLPMA and the Wilderness Study Area Act,
Litigation outcomes reinforcing those restrictions,
Administrative decisions to treat WSAs like de facto Wilderness—even without formal designation—thus banning mechanized uses including bikes.“

You guys need to get a good horse or mule. You can go pretty much anywhere you want on those fuckers.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiballs

You guys need to get a good horse or mule. You can go pretty much anywhere you want on those fuckers. Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

And they just walk back up to the top for ya!

Cliff horsie: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHc2sGlOaEb/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wooley12

Post the link for comment her when it's active.

---

Here you go - make your comments:

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...t-system-lands

It sounds to me like a Forest Service and executive branch thing so they can probably change it and if so they will. The other thing about selling lands was in Congress but I’m not sure I’m 100% behind the Rule. So many areas could use access roads or old access roads that’ve been closed off in forest land now cant be reopened…

I feel your pain. When the town turned the 9 hole golf course into a Frisbee golf course I lost 33.3 % of my avaliable golf holes.

I like roads….
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...ecfa328704.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take the road less rule over any fuckery Trump and his administration is up to specifically because of their posture on anything remotely "environmental " or anything for the greater good. If we ever have a sane government again, it can be revisited at that time.

<p>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

As a mountain biker, I&#39;d be a lot more excited to save this rule if the wilderness groups hadn&#39;t used it as a tool to shut me out of 1000&#39;s of miles of trail in areas that aren&#39;t designated Wilderness. Maybe if the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and others hadn&#39;t been so effective in abusing the intent behind this rule, it wouldn&#39;t be on the chopping block now. Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

---

</p>
<p>
&nbsp;</p>
<p>
Funny. Same thing happens here. They want you to sign a petition banning long lining and limiting commercial fishing, and then you find out that it actually does more to try to limit recreational fishing access.</p>
<p>
Same with the Save The Manatee people. Hint- They already saved them. Manatee populations are higher than ever. They keep pushing though, because most of the crazys that latched onto that cause really want to shut down the waterways to all boat traffic. It has very little to do with the Manatee. These people have all the time in the world to fight this, and they do.</p>
<p>
Sad that they don&#39;t realize that getting more people, especially young people, out in the wilderness more, through easier access, would help people appreciate it more.</p>

I tend to find myself looking for politicians who will temper the over zealous wishes of people who want to preserve habitat, animals, water and air quality rather than using that over zealousness to excuse unfettered development without regard the impacts. The people rolling these rules back are not just automotons without agency reacting to the success of environmental groups. They have agency, have well publiziced agendas and policy goals and are acting on them. To wit, the people rolling back the roadless rules would happily roll back NP protections and hard rock mine the Grand Tetons and permit a strip mine in Tahoe if they thought they could make a buck and there wasn&#39;t a law in their way. I supposed you might get some bike access back if the WSA designations are rolled back, but these people have demonstrated that they are activelty hostile to any expenditure of money on infrastructure for bikes. IMO, there is a larger conext to the other revisions to regulations and attempts to revise environmental regulation. It&#39;s not about being smarter, it&#39;s just about getting rid of them and go back to the era before the &#39;60&#39;s/&#39;70&#39;s. Roadless rules are completely in line with the USFS mission. Are they perfect? No, but better to protect these places and enjoy the natural long term benefits they provide then some short term resource extraction and lasting environmental impacts and work to revise them for the recreation you want. Besides, the USFS has 265,000 miles of roads and a multi billion dollar maintenance backlog of roads the public can already use and enjoy.

Here is the actual rule:
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...a-conservation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by civilcoconut

but these people have demonstrated that they are activelty hostile to any expenditure of money on infrastructure for bikes.

---

Not entirely true. Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act, which resulted in the largest influx of funds towards trails in my memory. That act did (and continues to do) more to improve trails and recreational access than any other federal program I can think of. Now, Trump has also screwed a bunch of stuff up and messed with some popular grant programs that funded outdoor access improvements, so it's certainly a mixed bag. But it's not all doom and gloom. Believe it or not, a big chunk of Trump's base is interested in outdoor access.

*I feel somewhat dirty defending Trump. Please don't mistake me for a supporter.

Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

Not entirely true. Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act, which resulted in the largest influx of funds towards trails in my memory. That act did (and continues to do) more to improve trails and recreational access than any other federal program I can think of. Now, Trump has also screwed a bunch of stuff up and messed with some popular grant programs that funded outdoor access improvements, so it's certainly a mixed bag. But it's not all doom and gloom. Believe it or not, a big chunk of Trump's base is interested in outdoor access.

*I feel somewhat dirty defending Trump. Please don't mistake me for a supporter.

Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

---

You seem to have above average intelligence. Something rare these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

Not entirely true. Trump signed the Great American Outdoors Act, which resulted in the largest influx of funds towards trails in my memory. That act did (and continues to do) more to improve trails and recreational access than any other federal program I can think of. Now, Trump has also screwed a bunch of stuff up and messed with some popular grant programs that funded outdoor access improvements, so it's certainly a mixed bag. But it's not all doom and gloom. Believe it or not, a big chunk of Trump's base is interested in outdoor access.

*I feel somewhat dirty defending Trump. Please don't mistake me for a supporter.

Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

---

Exactly how I feel.
I remember Trump signing that bill and I remember thinking the name was a distraction for increased extraction access. I was wrong, and he’s tried to trim back some of the stuff, but nonetheless we’re getting new bridges, etc. in National Parks and I’m pretty amazed. I’ve done a ton of searching. I still can’t figure out why he signed that bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plugboots

I’ve done a ton of searching. I still can’t figure out why he signed that bill.

---

Honestly, I think a lot of it is because his shithead sons consider themselves to be hunters / outdoorsmen.

But aside from that, it's broadly popular with bipartisan support, it appeals to his base, it ties in with his whole "infrastructure improvements" shtick, and in the grand scheme of the federal budget, it's cheap. And for the most part, it's not implemented by the forest service; the money flows to private entities. Which both "supports small businesses" and, presumably, allows assorted PAC donors to skim money off the top.

Sent from my SM-S931U1 using Tapatalk

Toast - I have the same struggle, not everything any admin does is bad. There are always bright spots. I personally think GAOA was an easy bipartisan win for everyone involved, but the Trump admin turned around and implemented fewer projects than planned and immediatley issued executive orders undermining some components of the law as passed (LCWF). At the end of the day GAOA is doing some great things, I even got to work on some of the projects funded by that program.

Also, it&#39;s 2025 now, not 2020 and it&#39;s just not the same admin, not that the first admin had a great record on their goals around the environment. I&#39;m taking what they say and do at face value, which is increased resource extraction and decreased regulatory scrutiny (mercury standards, clean air regulaitons on power plants, etc), deleting data from public facing websites, ignoring science, a national &quot;&quot;emergency&quot; to spur coal production and burning, weakening regulations around NEPA, etc. So forgive me if I think that plucking GAOA out of the totality of their environmental policy looks like cherry picking... :)

It just feels like everything in this country is just swining from one end of the pendulum every 4 years instead of some reasonable tweaks. Say, like allowing historic use in roadless and WSA until it&#39;s actually declared wilderness by law or reducing the eligible acres due to needed resource extraction for critical industries. Seems totally reasonable. Instead we get this...

And anyways, I think we all know this rule is going away shortly. Not much to stop the train at this point unless somehow Chevron comes into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by civilcoconut

And anyways, I think we all know this rule is going away shortly. Not much to stop the train at this point unless somehow Chevron comes into play.

---

Here in 2024, if Chevron comes into play it's going to be because someone sues the USFS claiming they don't have the authority to declare bicycles "mechanized" after they'd been outside that definition for decades under WA etc.

Stopped clocks come to mind. We had a really good and reasonable admin for 4 years and it would have been a good time to show how reasonable by revisiting the overreach then instead of now.

I think the problem is that every time the pendulum swings the feverish, exultant winners think it's the last time.