Trump administration to rescind rule protecting old-growth forests
By Grant Colby ·
The Department of Agriculture is proposing to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule—a rule that has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest land for decades.
The Illusion of Forest Health Through Repeal
The Department of Agriculture is proposing to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule—a rule that has protected nearly 45 million acres of national forest land for decades. This isn't merely an administrative tweak; it’s a massive rollback, and the stated goal—mitigating wildfire risk—is the bureaucratic equivalent of a smoke screen. Secretary Brooke Rollins framed the move as returning authority to local managers who "know the land best," suggesting that “outdated restrictions” are keeping acres off-limits to necessary treatments. The narrative is clear: Washington’s regulations have strangled productive forest management, and only deregulation can save the woods from themselves.
When Safety Becomes an Excuse for Exploitation
The proponents of this repeal, including Republican Governor Greg Gianforte of Montana, argue that building roads is essential for fire access. They point to catastrophic wildfire seasons—like the one Washington faced last month—as proof that current protections are failing. The reporting from Al Jazeera and The Guardian paints a picture of vast tracts of old-growth forest ripe for development: logging, drilling, and road construction. Environmental advocates, citing concerns over habitat fragmentation, warn that these forests are home to critical wildlife.
But this is where the argument fails the test of history. The mechanism being deployed—the promise of "necessary" infrastructure access under the guise of emergency management—is not new. It echoes the pattern of Transcontinental Railroad construction. In every instance, the stated need was expansion and connectivity; the result was deep penetration into previously restricted regions for economic exploitation. The railroad didn't arrive to gently improve existing settlements; it carved out entirely new frontiers, fundamentally changing what was possible in those lands.
A Dangerous Precedent of Unchecked Access
The history is stark: when a powerful interest group—be it railroads or timber conglomerates—requires access that current law restricts, the government finds a way to repeal the restriction. The USDA clarifies it isn't forcing cutting, but removing the legal barriers necessary for such activity. This move doesn't solve wildfire risk; it merely changes who gets to profit from the resulting chaos and what is deemed "productive" land.
The lesson of the transcontinental railways—that infrastructure development enables deep penetration into previously inaccessible regions—is unavoidable here. The government, citing a legitimate concern (wildfire), offers up an irresistible lever: the repeal of protective rules. They are trading long-term ecological stability for short-term political expediency and industry profit.
The American public deserves better than this bureaucratic sleight of hand. When Washington decides that the ledger sheet must be cleared—whether it’s a forest rule or a tax code—it is not acting in service to the land, but to the next development cycle. The protection of our national forests requires enduring law and respect for boundaries, not the temporary panic of an administration looking to sell off public assets piece by piece.