Last month around Montana the U.S. Forest Service held public meetings on their proposal to prohibit road construction in the remaining unroaded areas of the national forests. Many rural westerners are highly critical of the proposal. Their protests echo the Indians Ghost Dance ceremonies of the late 1800s which attempted to bring back the buffalo. Like the nearly extinct bison of a century ago, the richest ores, finest timber, and best dam sites have been exploited

But unlike the bison, the best of these resources are gone for good. Further, the nation has become immensely wealthy and highly educated. And heightened environmental sensitivity accompanies wealth and education.

Throughout the twentieth century the rural American West largely depended upon natural resource development. Timber, water, minerals, and grass were managed by a supposedly benign and competent federal government. These natural resources were central to the communities, economies, and belief systems of the West.

Across the rural West, logger, ranchers and miners are hurting. And most rural Westerners still think that all economic and social goods are tied to the exploitation of timber and minerals. This belief no longer squares with reality (if it ever did). However, the loud public debates over this chapter in the "War on the West" ignore our transformed economy.

For nearly thirty years economists have tried to change the rural West's misconceptions about their economy and the natural environment. They argue that the West's destiny is increasingly tied to protecting, not exploiting, natural resources. Roadless public lands, wilderness areas, free-flowing rivers, national parks and forests, open ranges and healthy wildlife habitats generate the West's economic growth.

Clinton's proposal to set aside 40 million acres of National Forest as roadless areas exploits this change. Fiscal conservatives and the vast majority of Westerners could applaud the decision, even while abhorring both Clinton and the process.

Politicians tied to the traditional economy of the West claim Clinton's initiative will eliminate jobs. However, roadless areas are undisturbed for a reason. After a hundred years of exploitation, the remainder has low economic value. Without explicit or implicit subsidies, resource extraction on these lands is infeasible. Because Federal lands are political lands, heavy subsidies are the norm. Therefore, the full costs of exploitation have been ignored, discounted, and obscured.

The extractive industries are historically unstable, and commodity prices cascade downward. The timber industry, for example, is leaving the West for the Southeast and foreign countries. Concurrently, technological improvements reduce commodity producers' demand for labor. Independent of Clinton's proposal, the traditional economy of the rural West is doomed.

New opportunities in the West are high-tech enterprises and services. These occupations benefit from open space and natural resources. Data clearly indicates that roadless areas foster economic growth in the New West. Professionals are increasingly footloose and are drawn to locations rich in environmental amenities.

Public comments to the Forest Service have overwhelmingly supported protecting roadless areas. Polls conducted by the Idaho Conservation League show majorities across the West support the initiative. Even in Idaho, and even with the Clinton administration's tag attached to it, 57 percent voiced support for the initiative. Without mention of Clinton, support jumped to 64 percent, a number in line with Idahoans who fish and hunt (65 percent), support conservative Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) (66 percent), and favor George W. Bush two-to-one over Al Gore.

Economically wasteful and ecologically destructive projects, e.g., below-cost timber sales and subsidized irrigation schemes, demonstrate federal irresponsibility. Restricting access and use by assigning roadless designation, however, will reduce such federally sanctioned mischief. It is precisely these and similar practices that would be constrained by the roadless proposal.

Experience has demonstrated how political pressures make federal management environmentally destructive and financially wasteful. Clinton's initiative would protect environmental amenities, the capital upon which the New West depends, until the land is managed by responsible owners. The task is to create institutions which generate public benefits while avoiding the high costs of federal ownership and political control.

Dave Foreman, a founder of Earth First!, observes that "conservationists have relied too much on federal government law and regulation". He reminds us that it "has also been easier to pass federal laws than to work out good conservation through the free market or through voluntary agreements".

Conservationists have learned the federal management is economically inefficient and ecologically destructive. It ignores or discounts the potential of community management and organizational entrepreneurs. However opportunistic, Clinton's proposal saves an analogue of the last buffalo until better, more conservation oriented, managers arise. The changing economy of the West tells us they will.

Pete Geddes, Program Director, contributed to this column.