The Roadless Rule Needs Your Help

[KQ]

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the (usually conservative-voting) rural hunters and anglers who have the most to lose if the Roadless Rule does get rescinded.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

[KQ]

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

[wooley12]

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

[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

[AdironRider]

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.

[KQ]

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.

[wooley12]

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

[The Nuclear Option]

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.

[Trackhead]

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.

[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 and paramilitary force.

[toast2266]

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

[Trackhead]

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.

[toast2266]

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.

[406]

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

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

[The Nuclear Option]

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.

[Danno]

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.

[toast2266]

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

[The Nuclear Option]

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.“

[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

[muted reborn]

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/

[KQ]

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

Here you go - make your comments:

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