Mike Lee's Push To Kill The Roadless Rule Inches Closer to Reality. Passes Subcommittee

Killing the Roadless Rule won't give you more OHV trails.

Photo by: WESTx1000

By: Jonathon Klein

Jun 12, at 7:43am ET

Add RideApart as a preferred source in Google

Comment

The end to the federal government's Roadless Rule is inching closer to reality, as in the Wildfire Prevention Act of 2026, which recently passed the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, had a provision snuck into the largely bipartisan wildfire prevention bill that would all but kill it.

Senator Mike Lee (R., Utah), introduced the provision into the bill's language at the 11th hour, and included in the bill due to its bipartisan support knowing that it wouldn't, and couldn't, pass through the normal channels after his public haranguing last summer during his attempted sell off of our public lands.

Many, however, in the OHV and powersports community have celebrated the potential for the Roadless Rule to be rescinded, along with the recent EO on OHV travel plans. And they've pointed to how we, as a community, will get more off-road trails. Likewise, proponents of these actions have stated it'll be better for wildfire suppression and security. None of these, however, are true.

What these actions amount to are plainly seen if you look at each piece's text, as well as the actors involved: This is the groundwork to sell off our public lands.

The adendum titled "Roadless Rule Nullification," and sets forth the mechanisms to kill the Roadless Rule in every state but Colorado or Idaho, as each has a state-based iteration, something pointed out by my colleague at Field & Stream, Travis Hall.

According to Field & Stream, "[Lee's amendment to the wildfire bill] closely mirrors a recent House Bill from Wyoming Representative Harriet Hageman, which F&S reported last month. That bill would also nullify the Roadless Rule, but it might not be necessary if Lee’s amendment becomes law. The primary difference between the two measures is that Lee’s amendment excludes Idaho and Colorado, which have their own state-level versions of Roadless Rule protections. All told, Lee’s version would eliminate Roadless Rule protections on approximately 45 million acres of USFS across 37 states."

The Roadless Rule does not preclude new trails, however. As our friends over at onX Off-Road have pointed out many times, the United States currently has over 550 million miles of off-road trails. And, based on the company consistently updating its maps and trail guides, that number is growing each year. Along with new trails built in conjunction with state agencies and conservation organizations, there's an off-road trail system that is second to none in the world. But safeguards are in place as to not interfere with wildlife, protected ecosystems, and more. These are multi-use lands, and no one group over the other should take priority.

As such, when the Roadless Rule passed in 2001, of the 1.6 million comments received by the federal government, it had a 90% approval rating, according to Trout Unlimited. For context, presidential polling usually only requires 1,000 comments to gauge a public's true perception of a candidate or the current president. This is magnitudes of order larger, and supported by how the outdoors community came together to defeat Lee's land sell of last year.

But more than all that, it must be said that removing roadless protections, along with the prior EO recissions, won't deliver more roads for you or I, as Senator Lee, along with those aligned with his crusade against public lands, aims to sell them off.

Roadless areas are difficult to navigate and difficult to exploit for energy extraction, development, and sell offs. Areas with roads, those near already established population centers, are far easier to auction off and extract from. Lee's own playbook from the "Big Beautiful Bill" from last year which used vague language on population centers and distance from said population centers, showcases that fact.

By removing roadless protections, the federal government can then begin the process of creating new avenues as to enter these areas and begin to sell off. Likewise, they wouldn't have the same environmental protections as roadless areas do now, only getting the standard public lands protections already in place, but are being actively weekend through the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Agriculture recent moves against them.

They won't be adding more trails for you or I if this passes, though. As the fight around the Ambler Road and Dalton Highway in Alaska shows, as well as the fight surrounding the Boundary Waters in Minnesota, resource extraction is this administration's top priority, as well as its selling to the highest bidder.

There's more, however, in that including this repeal in this wildfire prevention bill may be seen as helping reduce the risk of those who experience or have experienced wildfires in recent years. And Senator Lee, along with others in his caucus, have raised those comments, too, stating that roads would be better for fire suppression. Yet, according to National Park Service, 88% of wildfires are human caused and within a 1/2 mile of a trail or road.

Only 3% of wildfires begin in roadless forests.

What do you think?

View

Comments

There is good news to this story, however, in that the fight isn't over. Lee's amendment only passed the committee portion, and that's only because he snuck it into a bill that's largely good for the American people. There's still time to remove the amendment, just as his land sell-off amendment was removed from the "Big Beautiful Bill" last summer. But that's only if we start calling our senators right now and tell them that you do not support Lee's amendment to the act.

As we did during the prior land sell-off fights, here's the phone number to the capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121. You can ask for your senator's office and either speak to one of their aids or leave them a message. Here's also the directory if you want to email or write to them. That message should be do not approve this amendment.