Nearly all New Mexico residents who commented on a federal proposal to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule oppose it, with 589 of 594 comments urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to preserve protections for roughly 1.6 million acres of the state’s forestland.
All 120 comments specifically mentioning New Mexico’s national forests backed keeping the rule, citing threats to watersheds, wildlife and the solitude of wilderness areas.
Beyond concerns about environmental protection, many residents described the forests as places of solitude, spiritual renewal and personal connection with nature — experiences they fear could be lost if the U.S. Department of Agriculture moves forward with its proposal.
“We must protect them like the precious treasures that they are,” one elderly New Mexico resident wrote, describing wilderness solitude as a rare commodity in the modern world.
The comments came after the USDA closed its public comment period Oct. 6 on a proposal to eliminate the rule, which limits road construction, logging and other development across roughly 58 million acres of national forests nationwide.
The rule protects approximately 1.6 million acres of New Mexico forestland.
Residents fear losing the wilderness experience
One commenter recalled a backpacking trip in the Gila National Forest, where roughly one-quarter of the forest is protected under the Roadless Rule.
“We never saw nor heard another person, vehicle or anything else manmade,” the commenter wrote, describing a night sky filled with stars and being awakened by a large herd of elk thundering past.
“Nature is actually quite loud when it’s not drowned out by humans and our trucks, cars, heavy machinery, utility infrastructure constantly buzzing,” the person added.
The commenter said the experience inspired a hope to return to the Gila and trek through its distinctive wilderness again.
Another resident, who described himself as elderly, said his experiences in New Mexico’s wild places had been among the most meaningful of his life.
He hoped his sons would have the same opportunities to explore the forests, develop a love for nature and find the same sense of restoration.
The importance of preserving those experiences appeared repeatedly in the comments. Twenty-four mentioned “solitude,” while 20 described protected areas as “sacred.”
Even a 6-year-old child weighed in, writing about climbing trees and rocks and skiing in the Cibola National Forest.
“I think you should keep the Roadless Rule,” the child wrote.
More than 370,000 comments nationwide
The USDA received more than 370,000 public comments between Aug. 18 and Oct. 6 on its proposed repeal.
An analysis by the Center for Western Priorities, an environmental advocacy organization, used an artificial intelligence language model to examine the submissions and concluded that more than 99% opposed eliminating the rule.
In New Mexico, opposition came from people identifying themselves as ranchers, hikers, hunters, fishermen and business owners in communities surrounding the Gila National Forest.
Environmental organizations also mobilized residents against the proposal.
New Mexico Wild submitted letters opposing the repeal that carried the signatures of approximately 3,300 state residents. The group also organized a series of public hearings after the USDA declined to hold its own hearings on the proposal.
The range of people opposing the repeal underscores how the debate extends beyond conservation organizations to residents who value forests for recreation, livelihoods and the preservation of natural landscapes.
USDA says repeal would help forest management
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the administration’s intention to repeal the Roadless Rule while visiting Santa Fe in June 2025.
The administration has argued that ending the rule would return decision-making authority to local forest administrators, help reduce wildfire risks and support the logging industry.
Among the five New Mexico commenters who supported repeal, several raised concerns about wildfires and argued that the existing restrictions impede practical forest management. Four did not provide their names, which was optional.
Environmental advocates, however, dispute the argument that removing roadless protections would necessarily reduce wildfire risks.
They contend that constructing roads in previously protected areas can increase the likelihood of human-caused fires. Studies have also found that wildfires are less common in areas covered by the Roadless Rule, according to reporting by Source NM.
The disagreement highlights a central question in the federal debate: whether removing restrictions would improve forest health and wildfire management or expose previously protected landscapes to greater development and additional risks.
Ski resort manager backs local control
The only identified New Mexico commenter supporting repeal was John Paul Bradley, general manager of Sipapu Ski Resort in the Carson National Forest in northern New Mexico.
Bradley said a roadless area adjacent to the resort could not be managed to improve forest health under the existing restrictions.
“We believe in returning decisions to the local level and giving the Forest Service all the tools and support they need to actively manage these beautiful national forests across the West,” he wrote.
Bradley did not respond to requests for further comment.
For opponents, however, the prospect of greater access for logging, road construction and other development raises concerns that go beyond forest management. They fear losing wildlife habitat, watershed protections and the remote landscapes that give residents and visitors a chance to experience nature without the constant presence of human activity.
With the public comment period now closed, the USDA faces a record of overwhelming opposition among the New Mexico residents whose submissions were reviewed. Whether those concerns will influence the department’s final decision remains to be seen.
