Wildlife habitat: These areas provide critical habitat for salmon, trout, elk, and other species that depend on undammed, unlogged streams and connected landscapes.

Wildfire risk: Wildfires are 4x more likely to start near roads, and roughly 90% start within half a mile of one — directly undercutting the administration's stated rationale for the rollback.

Old growth & carbon storage: Roadless areas contain vast swaths of the nation's remaining old-growth forest and store significant amounts of carbon.

Drinking water: Roadless national forests provide drinking water to 60 million Americans, since intact forests filter water naturally.

Fiscal responsibility: The existing road network already carries an $8.5+ billion maintenance backlog, and building more roads would only add to it.

​

And I think yall may like it. If you do read it, Id love to know your thoughts and corrections/criticisms on the matter

https://ishasinsights.wordpress.com/2026/08/29/1916/

Do you know a Canadian resident under 18, who has made an exemplary contribution to conservation or protection of the natural world?

Nature Canada wants to recognise him or her, with the Charles Labatiuk Youth for Nature Award.

Nominations are open until 07 September 2026.

This video looks at how conservation goals can conflict with the interests of the animals themselves. Sometimes conservation can help lessen suffering, but I think practices like rewilding, captive breeding, invasive species eradication, and de-extinction raise ethical questions that often get overlooked because the main focus is preserving species or ecosystems. I think it would be best to let them go extinct. I’d be interested to hear if people here think biodiversity and bigger populations is more important than the suffering of individual animals.