Roadless rule not about 'wilderness'

A recent Associated Press story announced last week that a federal judge had reinstated a ban on road construction in "nearly 50 million acres of pristine wilderness."

That's a revealing view of roadless areas from a reporter in San Francisco, the same venue where U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Laporte sided with about 20 environmental groups that sought the return of the Clinton roadless rule.

"Pristine wilderness?"

That's simply not the case, but it does cut to the chase: Many supporters of the Clinton rule viewed it as a permanent protection for roadless areas, while many who opposed it saw it as a de facto wilderness designation for lands where motorized activity would forever be banned.

But some of the acres in question are hardly pristine, and they are not wilderness. In fact, some roadless areas are completely regenerated clearcuts where roads once existed. And a "wilderness" designation requires an act of Congress, rather than a presidential edict or, worse yet, a ruling from some district judge.

To be clear, we and many others who have raised concerns about the Clinton rule are not "against" roadless areas. We do not want to build roads willy-nilly across national forest lands. In fact, we think building roads into most roadless areas can't be justified.

The security afforded to wildlife by roadless areas is directly linked, in Montana, to the state's exceptionally long and highly valued big-game hunting season. The best available science and the obvious distribution of grizzly bears in Montana (around the most mountainous, rugged terrain) suggest that the state animal is most secure in roadless areas.

But we do question the blanket application of permanent protection to 50 million acres of national forest lands. Protections can and should be tailored to each and every national forest across the country.

It is important to remember that "roadless" areas were never established or identified as "pristine wilderness" - they were simply identified through inventories carried out in the 1970s.

The Clinton rule has been particularly maddening because of the way it has been sold as an environmental panacea with huge popular support. The fact is that, in the big Western states and counties where most roadless areas are, the blanket designation falls far short of being popular.

And for that reason, the Clinton rule will be litigated forever. Prior to Laporte's ruling, the rule was the subject of legal skirmishes in California and Wyoming. And now, Wyoming is planning to resurrect its legal battle opposing Clinton. That could lead to a ruling that conflicts with Laporte's ruling, and an ensuing battle through appellate courts.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, summed up the state's official position: "I have long maintained that the single best way to make these decisions is not through a blanket approach to forest management, but through the on-the-ground approach of forest planning."

In other words, roadless-area protections should be provided with customized scrutiny, which will improve "buy-in" and support at state and local levels, where big rules from big government just don't work.