We examined who actually supported repealing the roadless rule. The results tell a remarkable story

Nearly everyone wanted the Roadless Rule saved. We wanted to know who didn’t.

As we documented in our analysis of the federal docket, first published September 28 and updated with the final comment counts following the October 6 deadline, more than 99% of the nearly 1.2 million comments, letters, and signatures submitted on the Trump administration’s proposal to repeal the Roadless Rule opposed it.

The public’s position was overwhelming. But buried in that enormous record was another story we thought deserved a closer look.

Who, exactly, wanted the Roadless Rule gone?

Which businesses, industries, organizations, and government officials were pushing to eliminate protections for some of America’s last great undeveloped national forests? And what did they stand to gain?

We examined the formal positions of 454 organizations and government bodies that weighed in on the proposal. Just 95 supported repeal.

When we started looking at who those 95 were, a revealing picture emerged.

Follow the Industries

Of the 95 organizations and government bodies supporting repeal, 42 were industry and trade groups. Another 32 were counties, cities, towns, or local districts.

Together, those two categories accounted for nearly four out of every five organizations and government bodies calling for the Roadless Rule’s elimination.

The industry figures were particularly striking. Of 49 industry and trade groups that submitted positions, 42 supported rescission, just five opposed it, and two took mixed positions.

Here’s a sampling of the organizations that wanted the protections gone.

• Timber and logging: American Forest Resource Council, Associated Oregon Loggers, Associated California Loggers, Montana Wood Products Association, and Forest Resources Association.
• Mining and energy: National Mining Association, Alaska Miners Association, Western Energy Alliance, American Exploration & Mining Association, and North Dakota Petroleum Council.
• Ranching and grazing: Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, Montana Stockgrowers Association, and Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation.
• Motorized recreation: Motorcycle Industry Council, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association, and BlueRibbon Coalition.
• Other interests: Alaska Bankers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, and Pacific Legal Foundation.

Several individual businesses also supported repeal, including Southport Lumber, Grande Portage Resources, Vizsla Copper, and Mountain Capital Partners, a ski resort operator.

The Alaska Bankers Association was among the more surprising names to appear in our findings. So was the North Dakota Petroleum Council, advocating for the removal of forest protections in a federal rulemaking concerning roadless national forest lands.

Many of these organizations have an obvious interest in loosening restrictions on road construction, logging, mining access, or other industrial activity.

The administration has framed its proposal as a way to improve forest management, reduce wildfire risks, and give local land managers greater flexibility. Those arguments appeared repeatedly among the groups supporting repeal.

Yet the Roadless Rule already allows exceptions for certain emergency situations and forest management activities.

Interestingly, even the International Association of Fire Chiefs declined to endorse wholesale repeal, recommending amendments to the existing rule instead.

We’ve documented these organizations and linked their filings in our full docket analysis.

The Government Officials Who Wanted It Gone

Industry groups were joined by a collection of county governments, state officials, and local districts that also wanted the Roadless Rule eliminated.

Of the 54 counties, cities, towns, and districts that submitted positions, 32 supported repeal, 21 opposed it, and one took a mixed position.

Among the more noteworthy findings:

• Oregon: Baker, Harney, Jackson, Douglas, and Union counties supported rescission, even as the State of Oregon formally opposed it.
• California: Siskiyou and Modoc counties supported repeal, while the state government opposed it.
• Alaska, Utah, and Nevada: All three state governments filed in support of eliminating the rule.
• Wyoming: The Wyoming Game and Fish Department explicitly supported full rescission, a particularly interesting position from an agency responsible for managing wildlife.
• National Association of Counties: The national organization representing county governments supported repeal.

Meanwhile, cities including Asheville, North Carolina, and Walla Walla, Washington, called for keeping the protections. Salt Lake City’s mayor, public utilities director, and fire chief jointly urged the Forest Service to withdraw its proposed repeal.

Even Montana’s elected officials submitted competing letters, with groups of legislators taking opposing positions.

These disagreements reveal how deeply the Roadless Rule intersects with local politics, resource development, water supplies, wildlife management, and public land access.

But the central question remains. Should local economic and political interests be able to overturn national protections established for forests that belong to all Americans?

Who Was on the Other Side?

Here’s where the findings become especially striking.

While the majority of industry and trade groups favored repeal, the organizations representing conservation, tribal interests, scientific research, and much of the outdoor recreation community overwhelmingly called for keeping the Roadless Rule.

Consider these numbers:

• Conservation organizations: 151 opposed repeal. Zero supported it. They included Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and The Wilderness Society.
• Tribes and tribal organizations: 31 opposed repeal. Zero supported it. Among them were the All Pueblo Council of Governors, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Organized Village of Kake, and Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. Three other filings took mixed positions.
• Scientists and research institutions: 17 opposed repeal. Zero supported it. The American Fisheries Society, Society for Conservation Biology North America, and multiple chapters of The Wildlife Society were among those defending the rule.
• Hunting, fishing, and recreation organizations: 85 opposed repeal, compared with 13 supporting it. Trout Unlimited, Outdoor Alliance, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and American Mountain Guides Association all called for keeping the protections.

And then there were the businesses.

Patagonia, Black Diamond Equipment, REI, and Nantahala Outdoor Center were among the outdoor companies defending the rule.

So were some potentially less obvious organizations, including the Alaska Trollers Association, Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, New Hampshire Brewers Association, Business for Montana’s Outdoors, and Visit Big Sky.

These organizations represent an enormous range of interests, from protecting ancestral homelands and wildlife habitat to preserving clean drinking water, fisheries, and the outdoor recreation economy.

Their participation underscores just how broad the constituency for intact national forests has become.

The Numbers Behind the Million-Plus Comments

The organizational filings tell a fascinating story, but the broader public record is even more overwhelming.

Our final analysis counted 1,197,510 comments, letters, and signatures submitted during the 2026 comment period.

Of those:

• 1,190,695 opposed repeal.
• 2,137 supported repeal.
• 4,678 took mixed positions or stated none.

These figures include individually posted comments, letters submitted together in large collections, and petition signatures. They represent entries in the record rather than unique people. Even after removing all the duplicates we could identify, more than one million entries remained, although some people may still be counted more than once.

We uncovered several other remarkable findings.

• 104,719 comments were one of a kind, matching no other comment in the docket. Of those, 100,926 supported keeping the rule, compared with just 1,565 supporting repeal.
• 99.8% of form-letter copies that took a clear position supported keeping the rule. Just 452 of the 271,840 copies favored rescission.
• Not a single bundled submission we counted supported repeal. Of the 807,446 letters and signatures contained in bundled files, 807,428 were associated with submissions calling for the rule to remain in place. The remaining 18 were associated with submissions stating no position.
• Wildlife and habitat appeared in 85% of individually posted comments containing text. Drinking water and watersheds appeared in 78%, recreation in 57%, logging and timber in 48%, and wildfire in 44%. These figures count mentions, including repeated form letters, rather than distinct arguments.

The scale of the organizing effort was extraordinary.

We traced 845,443 comments, letters, and signatures to 49 named organizations, representing approximately 71% of everything counted in the 2026 record.

• Earthjustice – 174,660
• Natural Resources Defense Council –165,797
• National Audubon Society – 74,726
• Outdoor Alliance – 67,221
• Sierra Club – 51,021
• The Wilderness Society – 47,545

Those totals include form letters and bundled submissions.

We’re enormously grateful to all these organizations and to everyone who took the time to stand up for these forests. We’re also proud that this community was part of that effort through our Roadless Rule map and comment builder, created with the Sierra Club, and PLAN, our Public Lands Action Network.

Our analysis identified at least 1,823 comments written using our tools, including 1,657 that were one of a kind. That’s a meaningful contribution from this community, and we’re deeply grateful to everyone who participated.

So What Does This Tell Us?

The public has given the Forest Service an extraordinary record to consider. More than 99% of the comments, letters, and signatures counted opposed repeal. The overwhelming majority of conservation organizations, tribal governments, scientific institutions, and hunting, fishing, and recreation groups called for keeping the protections.

On the other side, the organizations advocating for repeal were heavily concentrated among extractive industries, trade associations, and local governments seeking greater flexibility over how national forests are managed. That’s a revealing picture of the interests behind the effort to dismantle one of America’s most important forest protections.

The Roadless Rule has survived 25 years of political challenges because Americans have consistently recognized the value of preserving these places. They provide clean water, wildlife habitat, outstanding recreation, and something increasingly difficult to find in this country: vast forests that haven’t been carved apart by roads and industrial development.

The Forest Service now has to decide what to do with the record before it. Public comments aren’t votes, and the agency’s final decision remains ahead. But the public has made its position abundantly clear.

We’ve published our complete investigation into the Roadless Rule docket, including the organizational breakdowns, underlying numbers, methodology, and downloadable data. We encourage you to explore it and see for yourself who stood on each side.

Read Our Full Roadless Rule Docket Investigation

Thanks to everyone who helped defend these forests. We’ll continue following the administration’s next steps and keep you informed.