Why the Roadless Rule Matters to All of Us
For mountain bikers, nothing beats the feeling of leaving the noise of civilization behind and finding true backcountry bliss. It’s in these remote places, the ones without paved roads, that we see the rugged challenge and solitude that define our sport. This is precisely why we’re so concerned about a new proposal from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to get rid of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Here at the California Mountain Biking Coalition (CAMTB), we serve as a unifying voice for hundreds of thousands of cyclists across the state. We’re a 501(c)(4) organization that works with local trail groups, land managers, and other partners to advocate for policies that protect the wild places where we ride. That’s why we’re speaking out in strong opposition to this proposal. Scrapping the Roadless Rule would threaten some of California’s most cherished backcountry riding areas, as well as many other areas, and would be a massive step backward for conservation and recreation.
Roadless Areas: Our Backcountry Bike Experiences
For us, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are the crown jewels of our public lands. They offer a unique “wilderness-like” experience without the restrictions on bicycles found in designated Wilderness areas. This means we can access some of the most remote and scenic singletrack trails out there.
The Roadless Rule also provides guidelines for active management to address wildfire and other public safety concerns. Fire suppression activities are explicitly allowed in Roadless Areas. Keeping Roadless Areas intact helps maintain healthy, resilient forests that store carbon and provide clean water, rather than fragmenting them with unnecessary roads that can actually increase long-term fire risk.
In California, these areas cover about 4.4 million acres across 21 national forests, including the Angeles, Tahoe, and Inyo National Forests. In practical terms, the Roadless Rule currently protects about one-third of America’s National Forest land, including 25,121 miles of trails, 8,659 climbing routes, 768 miles of whitewater, and 10,794 miles of mountain biking. Ever been to Lost Lake on the West Shore of Lake Tahoe? It is an epic journey and is an example of the types of places that this proposed change could impact.
These landscapes aren’t just for us; they also support a massive outdoor recreation economy that brings in billions of dollars for California each year. Opening them up to road development would fundamentally change their character, putting these pristine, wild places—and the recreation economy they support—at risk.
The Fiscal Reality: We Can’t Afford More Roads
The U.S. Forest Service is already in a major financial crisis. The agency’s deferred maintenance backlog—the amount of work that needs to be done on existing infrastructure—is a staggering $8.6 billion. Of that, over $5.98 billion is for roads alone. The Forest Service manages over 368,000 miles of roads, enough to circle the Earth 15 times, but it only has the budget to maintain about 20% of them to a proper standard.
In California, the problem is even worse. Take the Angeles National Forest, for example. Roads there, such as Angeles Crest Highway, are frequently shut down due to landslides, wildfires, and extreme weather conditions. These closures have already cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
The simple truth is that building and maintaining new roads in California’s rugged, unstable, and fire-prone landscape is costly and unsustainable. The Forest Service can’t even afford to maintain the roads they already have. Adding new roads in the most challenging terrain would be fiscally irresponsible and would only exacerbate the existing funding crisis.
Debunking the Wildfire Myth
The USDA’s primary argument for rescinding the Roadless Rule is that it would aid in combating wildfires. The science says otherwise. In fact, it shows the opposite is true: roads actually increase wildfire risk.
Extensive research has found that the highest concentration of wildfire ignitions happens within 50 meters of a road. Over 88% of all wildfires are human-caused, and of those, 95% start within a half-mile of a road. Conversely, less than 3% of wildfires begin more than two kilometers from a road.
Roadless areas are a key part of our wildfire management strategy precisely because they’re a low-ignition zone. They provide a place where fire can burn naturally to reduce fuel loads without threatening homes or firefighters. The current Roadless Rule already allows for essential fire management activities, so the idea that we need to build more roads to fight fires just doesn’t hold up.
A Better Way Forward
Instead of a blanket repeal that benefits extractive industries at the expense of taxpayers, there’s a better way. We believe the Forest Service should focus on optimizing the road system it already has. This involves strategically maintaining key roads while decommissioning or converting others that are no longer in use.
We also urge the Forest Service to expand partnerships with groups like CAMTB and our affiliated nonprofit trail stewardship organizations. We’re ready to put in the work, whether it’s building and maintaining trails, educating users, or helping the agency find solutions that don’t rely on expensive, unsustainable road construction.
The Roadless Rule is a testament to what’s possible when we prioritize conservation and sustainable recreation. Let’s not throw away a proven system for a plan that’s fiscally unsound, scientifically flawed, and fundamentally out of touch with what the American public wants for its public lands. We urge Congress to reject this proposal and instead support legislation, such as the Roadless Area Conservation Act, to provide lasting protection for these irreplaceable landscapes. The future of backcountry riding—and the health of our public lands—depends on it.
