The Underhanded Wilderness Grab of 2006
By John McClaughry

Ever since 1975, the advocates of turning Vermont's 400,000 acre Green Mountain National Forest into a wall to wall wilderness, entered only by the occasional foot traveler, have pressed their cause with relentless determination. Now, with the help of the state's two Senators, the Vermont Wilderness Association and its allies may be on the verge of their greatest victory.

As defined in federal law, "wilderness" means large areas of national forest permanently off limits to any activity deemed useful to humans, or involving internal combustion. No timber harvesting, even of stands killed by fire and insect infestation. No habitat improvement for wildlife. No shelter or trail construction and maintenance with power equipment. No chainsaw clearing of downed trees over trails – only hand tools may be used. No fire roads or fire breaks. No harvesting of downed trees to donate to lower income families for winter warmth.

Unlike all the other land in Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest, the uses of wilderness areas are not reviewed and adjusted every 10-15 years as part of the Forest Service's recurring planning process. No Vermonter, nor any Vermont legislature or Governor, will ever again have any say over the use of the wilderness areas. The wilderness restrictions and prohibitions are forever, until the sun burns out.

The Eastern Forest Wilderness Act of 1975 designated 17,300 acres of Green Mountain National Forest as wilderness, at Lye Brook and Bristol Cliffs. The acreage was small, and there was little controversy.

Emboldened by passage of the 1975 act, the wilderness coalition returned in force in 1984, demanding another 100,000 acres. This time there was vocal opposition from the forest products industry, towns within the forest boundaries, foresters, snowmobilers, sportsmen, farmers, and many others. Despite this opposition, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Robert Stafford, and Rep. James Jeffords drove through legislation adding 41,260 more acres of wilderness, plus 21,000 acres of in-effect wilderness disguised as a "recreation area".

In 2001 the Forest Service again started its recurring planning cycle in Vermont. The wilderness advocates demanded another 80,000 acres of wilderness, plus 50,000 acres of near-wilderness. After public hearings dominated by wilderness opponents, and an e-mail blitz dominated by the wilderness coalition, the Forest Service came up with its recommendation. It proposed adding another 27,000 acres of wilderness.

The wilderness coalition shrieked "not enough!". On cue, just as in 1984, Sen. Leahy and Sen. Jeffords, now aided by Rep. Bernie Sanders, announced that they would sponsor a bill to add 48,000 more acres of permanent wilderness, plus another16,890 acres of bogus "national recreation area". Of their proposed wilderness acreage, 35,000 acres lies in towns whose town governments are on record as opposed to any more wilderness designation.

It was thought, at first, that such a bill would not be acted on during the few remaining weeks of the current Congress. But Leahy and Jeffords, long-time champions of ever more wilderness, weren't going to take "no" or even "maybe next year" as an answer. They hit upon the idea of grafting their bill, or as much of it as they could get away with, onto a similar bill creating new wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire bill contains exactly the acreage recommended by the Forest Service. It has been agreed to by all affected interests in New Hampshire, and is likely to go through easily under a unanimous consent agreement. What could be slicker than Sen. Leahy and Sen. Jeffords slipping whatever their wilderness friends want into the New Hampshire bill, and whistling it through below the radar? No impact analysis, no hearings, no explanation, no record vote, no accountability. Slick.

One would not expect the Republican House to do any favors for Sen. Leahy, Sen. Jeffords and would-be Senator Sanders. But in the hectic final days of a Congressional session, skilful legislators unburdened by principle can sometimes make very improbable things happen.

Vermont could suddenly get 65,000 acres of new permanent wilderness and pseudo-wilderness. Retiring Sen. Jeffords would get his name on a plaque somewhere in the new acreage. Sen. Leahy would win the undying gratitude of the wilderness organizations.

The wilderness coalition would take time out to celebrate, then start to formulate their next demand for more wilderness in 2016, all the while filing more lawsuits to stop timber harvesting in the parts of the Green Mountain National Forest they haven't yet managed to make permanently off limits to any beneficial economic use.

Left out of these festivities, of course, is everyone else: loggers, snowmobilers, ATV riders, forest towns, sportsmen, farmers, and just plain citizens who do not favor Congress locking up our national forest forever, just to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the wilderness organizations and their two devious agents in the Senate.

John McClaughry is President of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org).