At every turn, the government is going out of its way to avoid, or at least limit, critical habitat designations. And rightly so, because it is the most wasteful element of the Endangered Species Act.

Critical habitat or a license to sue

Critical habitat designations consume a huge percentage of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget, with little practical benefits for listed species. Critical habitat proponents argue otherwise, of course, saying that you can't protect a species without protecting its habitat.

That's true, but that simple line of thinking ignores any suggestion that maybe the most important habitat for a particular species can be protected and enhanced without the miserable, hugely expensive, overextending process that establishes the facade of "critical habitat."

Those who are most interested in critical habitat are bound to make the most of the designations once they are in place - through lawsuits aimed at curbing activities that may or may not disturb potential habitat for a listed species.

And that exposes the biggest problem with critical habitat, as it is pursued by environmental groups: there is no precision, no critical selection of habitats that would allow targeted or prioritized conservation measures.

They don't want some streams and lakes designated as critical habitat for bull trout. They want as much water designated as possible, and last week, another lawsuit was filed to compel the Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the previously expanded designations for bull trout.

They argue that huge stretches of water that are entirely unoccupied by bull trout should be included because they are part of the fish's historic range.

Same goes for lynx. Already, critical habitatophiles are clamoring for vast designations to cover as much forest land as possible, with the main criteria being forest land that maybe, possibly could support lynx.

But the Fish and Wildlife Service is pushing back in a perplexing way. Excluded from the proposed designation for Montana are all national forest lands, but included are some 1,700 square miles of private lands.

That has raised hackles on all sides, leading us to believe that this will be yet another protracted, expensive designation process that will almost certainly involve litigation.

While the service says national forest lands were excluded because they are already managed under a Lynx Conservation Strategy, we have every reason to believe that exclusion is partly intended to limit the federal government's exposure to an entirely predictable wave of lawsuits that would result from expansive designations on national forest lands.

It doesn't really matter if the Forest Service or the Fish and Wildlife Service think they are accounting for lynx and protecting their habitat. That wouldn't be enough. What matters to the environmental plaintiffs is that, with each new critical habitat designation, they add a whole new arsenal of legal arguments to challenge just about any type of forest management activity in the covered area.

And with the proposed designations applying to private holdings, landowners such as Plum Creek Timber Co. have every reason to be concerned about the potential for critical habitat litigants to take issue with their management practices.

Critical habitat may be a bonanza for trial attorneys and their plaintiffs, but the costs won't be commensurate with the benefits for lynx.