I am writing to ask you all to reconsider the position that many of you have taken on the controversy over the Roadless Rule of 2001. I think you are underestimating how very divisive the administration’s recent proposal would be, if implemented.
The new Forest Service Chief has proposed to revoke the Roadless Rule of 2001 that protects most Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) from roads and commercial timber harvest, with some exceptions. These roadless areas provide valuable benefits to the public, including protected wildlife habitat, quiet recreation, intact natural ecosystems, and an important part of what makes Montana so special.
Support from the timber industry to revoke the Roadless Rule threatens the remarkable consensus on public forest management that regional collaborative groups have developed in Montana. The public consensus is generally based on increasing active management, fuels reduction and timber harvesting on the majority of public forest lands, while retaining protections for priority wild country.
This consensus view has been remarkably successful in reducing conflict and gridlock in public lands management over the past couple of decades, by supporting a balanced and common-sense approach, and defusing influence from radical minority voices.
The Timber Wars and the Grand Bargain
It is not a coincidence that the timber wars faded around the time the roadless areas were protected. The Roadless Rule represents the grand bargain that removed a huge source of conflict over public land management. The rule has allowed former opponents to begin to see each other as natural allies for common sense management.
What is Reasonable?
It is well known that most of the roadless areas offer little promise in terms of commodity production, while a central goal of conservationists and many other forest users is to protect the majority of roadless areas. So, does it seem reasonable for industry to insist on stripping all protections?
It is certainly true, as some timber reps have stressed, that a lack of roads greatly limits options for fighting fire and for thinning dense stands. But does this mean it makes sense to develop an extensive road system to access some 5.5 million acres of roadless lands in Montana? Of course not. That would clearly be a gigantic and unjustifiable expense, and the maintenance costs would overwhelm our resources. Also, building roads into so many wild places would clearly degrade other important multiple use values.
So, if we do not want to actually develop all these wildlands, why do we need a blanket removal of protection from all IRAs?
Part of the justification you offer for revoking the rule is that it will not really change management of most IRAs. If that is true, then why insist on rescinding the rule instead of amending it?
Advantages of Amending the Roadless Rule
The advantage of amending, rather than rescinding, the Roadless Rule is that amendments can provide standards and guidelines that can increase flexibility to allow some limited roadbuilding and more active management in IRAs. Amendments to the rule could maximize our ability to reduce fire risk and improve forest conditions, especially on lands near our communities, while minimizing fragmentation and degradation of roadless values.
Revoking the roadless rule entirely is going to result in pressure, year after year, to develop the IRAs, including ones far in the backcountry. This will set up bitter conflicts between competing groups. In this situation, many conservationists are going to gear up to fight, and they are going to be able to raise a lot of money and support to do just that.
I hope you are aware that revoking the roadless rule is a non-starter for a major portion of forest users, and I do not see how that step is necessary to meet the goals that the industry and most all collaborative members share – to increase active management and timber harvest in appropriate places.
The IRAs represent an important and special category of our public lands. Let’s not ignore this reality.
My request to all timber leaders is to consider being more open to finding common ground on this issue. Most conservationists are open to amending the Roadless Rule to provide more flexibility in managing these lands. Let’s work together to find solutions, and not divide ourselves into opposing factions.
Doug Ferrell retired homebuilder from Trout Creek. He has been involved in public forest management issues for 50 years as a conservationist and supporter of the timber industry. He also has 15 years of experience in a leadership position in a forest collaborative group.