I've genuinely been trying to get a clear answer on this as well, and while I'm neither an expert nor an attorney, here's my take after ctrl-f-ing my way through the
original text and researching from sources on both sides of the argument:
Bottom Line IMO: rescinding the RR wouldn't be good for hunters or wildlife; it would be good for commercial logging.
I think the RR could benefit from some targeted revisions for FS-implemented wildfire management, and/or additional state-specific plans like ID & CO have, but getting rid of it completely (and preventing similar rules from being created in the future) is not a net positive for wildlife or hunters.
Seems to me like Lee is mostly in this because of what it opens for commercial logging and other potential development on public land. If this truly was just about mitigating wildfires on FS land, why not make updates specific to that, rather than simultaneously opening up to commercial use?
Roadless Rule does have exceptions for the FS when it comes to wildfire management. The main downsides I've found are that it doesn't easily allow the FS to build new roads for
preemptive fire management (only "imminent"), and only allows for non-commercial logging of "generally small-diameter" trees for fire management.
If someone proposed specific revisions that make it easier for FS managers to do what they deem best for wildfire conditions and wildlife, I'd be much more open. But the argument for scrapping it entirely seems very dubious from a wildfire-management perspective.