The public’s forests

In the debate on the value of setting aside land for wilderness — or the 1990s version of wilderness, anyway — President Clinton last week raised an entirely sensible point when he proposed making the land the federal government already owns more forestlike. The idea, in general, already enjoys wide public agreement; the president’s plan to stop or slow development on public land in places like the White Mountains of Maine deserves enthusiastic support.

Though Congress may challenge it, the plan would make 40 million acres of national forests off limits to road building. That would add to the 34 million acres Congress already has designated as wilderness — no logging or mining, for instance — in the 192 million-acre network of federal forests. The land in the Clinton proposal would not be designated wilderness, but by stopping the costly practice of building roads, that would be its effect. Without the wilderness designation, the decision to protect these lands can be done administratively, without congressional approval.

Under normal circumstances, the president would have no business making an end run around Congress. But this Congress, through recent votes such as on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a federal judgeship, seems determined to reject White House proposals just for the sheer joy of it. If President Clinton wants to get anywhere in his remaining year, he has no choice but to avoid the congressional route.

The value of the president’s proposal is that it provides a balance between using a resource and preserving it. Already, more than half of the total acreage in the national forests has been affected by logging, oil or gas development and mining or similar uses. Within these acres are 383,000 miles of roads, plus an additional 60,000 miles of temporary roadway. These roads provide wide access nationwide for multiple uses. The question is how many more thousands of miles of roads would be built without a plan like the president’s being implemented.

If the public believes there are values in the forest beyond those that industry can profit by monetarily, then they too deserve recognition. This plan leaves most of the nation’s forests open to extractive industries while preserving a significant portion for its intrinsic value. Members of Congress, of course, are bothered tremendously by such an idea and have promised political maneuvers of their own to stop it. If they could calm down for a moment to examine the plan, however, they would find much to recommend it – and they would likely find their constituents already in favor of it.