Dear HCN,
I disagree that President
Clinton’s 40 million-acre roadless area proposal represents
“uncharted territory: (HCN, 11/8/99: A new road for the public
lands). We have already done what the president wants – been there,
done that! Each national forest has been through at least one
forest plan. In that process we looked at each inventoried roadless
area and discussed the pros and cons of leaving it roadless. This
was done through an open public-involvement process that all could
participate in. Following that process, national forests allocated
roadless areas to either a roadless or roaded prescription. No one
is 100 percent satisfied, but we can at least live with the
result.
Now the president wants to impose a
top-down decision. Apparently we didn’t get it right the first
time, so we have to do it again. But whose definition of “right” do
we go by? If we look at the roadless areas again to satisfy Clinton
and the next administration does not agree, do we do it again? This
will lead to a perpetual planning process. Now that we have
public-involved forest plans, I think it is time to bury
inventoried roadless areas so far in the earth they cannot be dug
up again.
Jim
Gerber
St. Anthony,
Idaho
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline How much forest planning is enough?.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
