There won't be national roadless bill unless Idaho rule is recognized
New West columnist Bill Schneider of Montana asks somewhat politically naively why Congress can’t put President Bill Clinton’s roadless rule into law.
Schneider points out in his article, “Roadless Rule Bill: the Timing is Right, so Just Pass It,” that Sen. Maria Cantwell and Rep. Jay Inslee, both Washington Democrats, have re-introduced the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act. He decries that the bill has no support from Idaho and Montana without giving any context to why.
Idaho already has its own separate roadless rule that protects nearly 9 million acres of roadless national forest in the state from roadbuilding and other major development. Former Gov. Jim Risch led the negotiations that brought support for his rule from environmental groups like Trout Unlimited and the Idaho Conservation League.
The Wilderness Society, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and others challenged the rule in court but it’s not certain they have a legal case. And all they can really be fighting about is a few thousand acres and the extent of the protections in the areas protected under the bill.
So if Schneider and other roadless supporters including Cantwell and Inslee were really serious about passing a national roadless bill wouldn’t they be talking to now Republican Sen. Risch, who already has a record of negotiating the details? The groups that are suing decided early on to stay out of the negotiations but in the case of the Wilderness Society are not by record opposed to working out their interests.
Risch has told me in the past that if Cantwell was really interested in working on a roadless bill that took into consideration Idaho’s current status he’d be willing to talk. We will know when Cantwell is serious when she and Risch get together on the bill.
Then they will have to work out issues in Colorado and other western states, which should not be impossible.
The real barrier is Alaska where its delegation is totally against the roadless designations in the Tongass National Forest. But that opposition is not insurmountable.
It will take a deal, which many roadless supporters don't want to hear. That's just the way the Senate is organized.
- Rocky Barker's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
Please clarify if Maria Cantwell is a chick or a cat in P.6
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
You're not even reading the responses to your own articles?
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
Here's your typo.
Risch has told me in the past that if Cantwell was really interested in working on a roadless bill that took into consideration Idaho’s current status *he’d* be willing to talk. We will know when Cantwell is serious when *she* and Risch get together on the bill.
Cantwell isn't a transgender so...
I'm saying Anna Webb notices.
----------
There is no life in Idaho...it is a mirror site on god's server. You were dreaming but it is over. Go to your residence and await our commands and THEN we will restore control...
Like you said, they are not
Like you said, they are not really serious for the bill. The only possible reason why Idaho and Montana refusing the bill, because there is no discussion about that, I'm sure about it. They see some loopholes in the bill. So, why not revised the bill and then discuss it properly with the other states. I believe if the bill is okay, then, they must be accepted it. how to file bankruptcy