• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

No Trespassing ; Access to National Forests at Risk

Posted on: Wednesday, 11 January 2006, 21:00 CST

National forest lands have been managed for "multiple uses" since the system's creation a century ago, based on the premise that public lands belong to all the people and should be managed for both aesthetic and economic benefits. But that time-proven policy is in danger of being overturned on half the national forest land in Colorado if special interests pushing for the codification of Clinton administration "roadless areas" get their way.

The squeaky wheels will be out in force at the Pueblo Convention Center this evening, as the governor's Roadless Area Task Force holds a public hearing on which of Bill Clinton's roadless areas to retain, if any. As a result, the panel will likely get a skewed view of what average Coloradans think. So perhaps we can help balance the debate.

The focus on roads is an unfortunate detour, because what this is really about is who will have access to our national forests. Will we retain the traditional multiple use mandate, or close off a vast swath of these lands to most people and most uses? "Land of many uses" has long been the slogan affixed to Forest Service signs. Roadless advocates would like to change those to "No Trespassing" signs.

There are 14.5 million acres of national forest in the state. Roughly 3.3 million of those acres already are designated as wilderness, severely restricting access and industry. Add to that 4.4 million acres of "roadless areas" proposed by the Clinton administration and you cut by half the lands that still would be managed for multiple uses, since roads are critical to most of those uses.

But that's exactly what the special interests backing roadless areas want. Environmentalists want to oust ranchers, miners, loggers, energy companies and certain kinds of recreationists from the national forests. Hunting and angling groups want to have these playgrounds to themselves. And recreational snobs, who look down their noses at anyone not able or inclined to rough it in the backcountry, also are behind the exclusionist trend.

These groups were upset when Clinton's slippery attempt to overturn the multiple-use mandate on 60 million acres of national forest was thrown out by a federal judge, who called it an illegal scheme to create wilderness areas without consulting Congress. Now that the Bush administration has bucked the decision to states, these groups are mobilizing to salvage Clinton's land grab. And unless average Americans speak up, the exclusionists will succeed.

Clinton's roadless plan wasn't just dishonest, it was foolhardy, coming at a time when more, not less, access to fire- and disease- prone national forests is needed. These forests are desperately in need of hands-on management, in response to the wildfire threat and insect infestations. But this becomes much harder without the access that roads provide.

Continued access to national forests for miners, energy companies and timber cutters also remains a national priority, unless we are prepared to go without these economically and strategically important commodities. Without roads, these and other economically beneficial activities will be impossible. And the notion that more roads will lead to the rape of these lands is ridiculous: Plenty of safeguards exist to ensure these activities are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.

Many recreationists also will find access to the national forests curtailed if the roadless concept is embraced. Not every American has the strength, know-how or inclination to do the wilderness experience. And creating de-facto wilderness areas in half Colorado's forests would be a blow to those who enjoy the outdoors in less rugged ways. The aversion to forest roads by hunters and anglers is odd, even hypocritical, unless these groups expect us to believe they don't already make good use of such roads when doing their thing.

The multiple-use mandate, though imperfect, has served the nation well for a century. Clinton was wrong to try and rescind it through executive action, by conducting an end-run around Congress. Had he shown more sense, we might have been spared years of controversy and court battles.

To work, multiple use requires that various "stakeholder groups" recognize the need to share, rather than dominate, these lands. But special interests, by definition, pursue narrow and self-serving goals. So unless average Americans speak up, and insist on retaining the multiple uses of their public lands, the exclusionist element will carry the day.

Emotional whiplash in mining tragedy

There's no easy way to learn a loved one is dead. However, families of the 12 miners killed in a West Virginia coalmine endured a particularly horrible emotional rollercoaster. After three hours of celebrating the rumored survival of the group, they learned that all but one had perished. We're sorry for their loss.

The incident doesn't reflect well on the mining company, on West Virginia's governor or on the news media. One can understand wanting to report a positive outcome. But going with a story that was based on not fully understood phone conversations -- which almost all the media did -- does not buffer our credibility.

For consumers of news the story might offer some lessons. Omnipresent cable news coverage, much of which relies on speculation, highlights what most professionals learned long ago. In a major news story, the very first version, the first impression, the way things appear the moment you arrive on a scene is almost always incorrect -- perhaps only in small and unimportant ways, but sometimes in significant ways. It takes repeated questioning and checking to get the facts straight.

Carelessness in this case not only damaged the media's credibility, but added immeasurably to the agony of the miners' family members.

Source: Gazette, The; Colorado Springs, Colo.

More News in this Category