For a quarter-century, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule has safeguarded vital forests and grasslands from industrial equipment like bulldozers, saws, excavators, and drilling gear. However, the more than 58 million acres of pristine national forest it protects are now vulnerable to exploitation for profit.
In June, the Trump Administration moved to rescind the 2001 law, a hard-won policy that prohibited road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvesting in specific national forest areas. At its signing, it was the most commented-on rule in U.S. history, with overwhelming public support for shielding forests and grasslands from development. Since its enactment, it has become one of the nation’s most impactful conservation policies.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the U.S. Forest Service, is attempting to present the repeal of the Roadless Rule as a way to protect against wildfires and promote responsible forest management.
We should be cautious about accepting the administration’s statements at face value.
During Trump’s first term, he significantly reduced the size of the Bear Ears monument, citing “federal overreach.” However, after this decision was announced, leaked emails revealed that the Department of Interior’s interest in gas and oil played a primary role. The author believes that rescinding the Roadless Rule is simply another strategy for Trump to extract resources from public lands, this time focusing on minerals.
Indigenous Tribes’ ancestral homelands and hunting grounds could face threats of mining, clear-cutting, or development without consultation due to this decision. Critical wildlife habitats may be at risk of alteration or complete destruction. This action will also likely lead to more polluted air and water. Millions of outdoor enthusiasts—campers, hikers, climbers, paddlers, anglers, and hunters—could lose access to areas they have enjoyed for decades.
By rolling back protections and opening our national forests to industry and “fire prevention” measures—which often serve as a pretext for logging—we put almost 50,000 miles of trails, nearly 800 miles of whitewater runs, and over 8,500 climbing routes at risk of permanent loss. Iconic areas such as the Appalachian Trail, Lake Tahoe, and the White Mountains, along with lands bordering Rocky Mountain, Glacier, Olympic, and Yellowstone national parks, will all become open to development. Ironically, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington, named after the U.S. Forest Service’s first chief, would see over 60,000 acres lose protection.
While the outdoor industry, which accounts for a substantial amount in economic output, relies on access to these areas for business, so too do the surrounding communities. An estimated 158 million visitors to our national forests contributed significantly to the economy and helped support 161,000 related jobs. Moreover, millions of Americans depend on drinking water from rivers and aquifers whose sources are within national forests.
Reversing the Roadless Rule would effectively close opportunities for local, often rural, businesses that depend on recreation visitors, while simultaneously extending a welcoming hand to mining, timber corporations, and the fossil fuel industry. This decision enriches industry executives at the expense of the public who enjoy public lands. It also disregards the principle that protecting nature often means protecting people.
The climate and ecological crises are intensifying, with their effects harming communities across the country. Forests, the largest terrestrial carbon sinks globally, are part of the solution. Inventoried roadless areas alone capture a significant amount of carbon per year in the American West, including 43.4 million tons in the Interior West and almost 4 million tons in the East.
At a time when we should be doing everything possible to decrease emissions, rescinding the Roadless Rule is illogical. Under the guise of addressing a supposed need to boost domestic timber production, the government is actively contributing to an existential threat.
Fortunately, the public recognizes the detrimental nature of this decision. Indigenous Tribes, NGOs, and elected officials all perceive its true implications. Business coalitions like Brands for Public Lands, of which Patagonia is one of more than 125 members, are mobilizing their respective communities to speak out.
We know protecting nature garners broad support across political beliefs, but it’s up to us to remind this administration how harmful this decision could be. As demonstrated when a few congresspeople attempted to sneak public land sales into the budget, we can rally together to protect the places we love. Elected officials like Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke have defended public lands before, and we’ll need their support and that of citizens again—and again and again for as long as this continues.
Profiting from the exploitation of public lands has always been the goal, and we will encounter it under many names. Our children and grandchildren will also likely face these same disguised attempts for decades to come—if there is anything left to protect, that is.
The USDA’s public comment period on the attempt to eliminate the Roadless Rule is open through Sept. 19. All of us have in some way benefited from the policy’s protections, whether through recreation, clean drinking water, or otherwise.
It’s time we reciprocate. We need to advocate for the Roadless Rule—before it’s too late.
