Policy will change with perceptions


Missoulian editorial

SUMMARY: Understanding roadless-area protection as something other than a jobs-vs.-environment issue takes time.

Debate over management of wilder tracts of land in national forests of Montana and the West will continues. The U.S. Forest Service has decided to extend the discussion about its rules for managing roadless areas for another couple of months anyway. Experience suggests the next decision on the matter may not be the last one.

We sometimes grow weary of seemingly unending debates, but this is an issue that defies speedy resolution.

At issue is management of some 58 million acres out of the 191 million acres that comprise the national forests. These are the areas not - in some cases, not yet - officially designated as wilderness, but remain largely undeveloped.

The Clinton administration decided in early 2001 to bar road construction in roadless areas. The decision was a huge victory for conservationists who've sought for decades to protect these backcountry areas from logging and other intensive development. It was a short-lived victory, however. The Bush administration has never embraced the idea. Critics challenged the Clinton roadless rule in court, and the Bush administration is seeking to revise it. Earlier this summer the Forest Service announced a plan that would give governors of the states an opportunity to petition for roadless-area management to their liking.

Last week, the Forest Service moved the deadline for public comment about the proposed changes to mid-November. Skeptics point out the new deadline is conveniently after the Nov. 2 election; however, the Forest Service routinely extends comment periods on matters of great controversy. In any event, no harm will come from letting people bat this issue around more.

To the contrary, this is an issue that benefits from careful study.

While many Americans instinctively support measures protective of wild lands, many others view these lands as reservoirs of natural resources - especially timber - needed to support job-producing industry. The roadless issue is seen by many as the classic tussle of jobs-vs.-environment.

The reality takes time to sink in, however. And the reality is this: It's no accident that most national forest roadless areas are roadless. For the most part, we're talking about the most remote, most rugged, least productive (for timber) parts of the forests. Remember, the best, easiest-to-access ground was snapped up and privatized in the early rounds of Western settlement. The national forests were created from the leftovers. Throughout most of the 20th century, the Forest Service mission revolved largely around road-building and logging.

What's left as roadless today consists mostly of lands where the cost of building roads would greatly exceed the value of the timber those roads would make accessible to loggers. What's more, with close to two-thirds of the national forests crisscrossed with roads, the roadless remainder have taken on greater importance as secure wildlife habitat, watersheds and recreation areas.

Time was when the Forest Service - and taxpayers - didn't pay much attention to cost-benefit ratios when it came to punching roads into the backcountry. Things have changed. Not even the Forest Service can grow money on trees. The notion that roadless areas can be a significant source of timber for industry is based on the unlikely prospect that Congress will subsidize the necessary road-building. If it were going to do that, it would have done it long before now.

All this becomes apparent to anyone who studies the situation. Building a workable consensus, however, takes time. The Clinton administration moved too quickly; its roadless rule didn't rob anyone of anything, but it sure didn't feel that way to people and industries clinging to expectations that the end of the road remained far, far over the distant ridge. The Bush administration also has found this issue defies speedy resolution. Reconciling public perceptions and reality sometimes just takes time.