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 are on the verge of their greatest victory.

Under 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. 

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 wilderness areas. The 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 proposed adding another 27,000 acres of wilderness.

The wilderness coalition shrieked "not enough!". On cue, just as in 1984, Leahy and Jeffords, now aided by Rep. Bernie Sanders, announced that they would sponsor a bill to add 48,000 more acres of permanent wilderness, plus another 16,890 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.

To the wilderness coalition (and this newspaper), Congressional designation of 48,000 more acres of wilderness represents a "compromise". How’s that? First the wilderness people demand 80,000 acres from everyone else, while giving away nothing at all. Then they agree to settle for 48,000 acres (this time), and boast of their willingness to accept a "compromise". It’s like a threatening panhandler demanding $80 from a passerby, then "compromising" by taking only $48.

Last week Leahy and Jeffords succeeded in grafting their bill onto a similar but noncontroversial bill (S. 2463) creating new wilderness in the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire. Then the Senate whistled the bill through – with no hearings, no testimony, no explanation, no recorded vote. Slick.

Whether the House will agree to this underhanded stunt is in question. If it agrees, Vermont will suddenly get 65,000 acres of new permanent wilderness and pseudo-wilderness. The wilderness coalition will take time out to celebrate, then start to formulate its 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 Vermont’s national forest forever, just to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the wilderness organizations, their two devious agents in the Senate, and their ambitious agent in the House.

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