A lot of leaders in the West were mighty peeved with President Clinton when, as one of his last acts, he signed an executive order placing 58.5 million acres of roadless areas off limits to development.

The decision certainly carried a whiff of imperialism as it bypassed with the stroke of a pen the roadblocks it would have faced in Congress. Republican representatives and senators howled about being left out of the decision-making process. However, in reversing Clinton’s order, President Bush issued an executive decree of his own.

Predictably, this tit for tat has gotten bogged down in litigation that’s as tangled as forest vines. Lost in the discussion is pragmatism. Is it really worth it to build more forest roads when the feds don’t have the upkeep funds for the current ones? The maintenance backlog stretches to nearly 400,000 miles and will require more than $10 billion.

There’s nothing praiseworthy in the way Clinton issued the decree, but as time passes it would appear that he had the right idea.

A bipartisan bill in the Senate, co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., would preclude development in the remaining roadless areas in national forests. The public would still have access, but no roads would be built. Timber could be cut only if doing so would improve wildlife habitat or further other forest management activities. U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., has introduced a similar bill in the House.

An increasing number of people, many of whom are Republicans, seem to be coming around to the idea that building more forest roads to benefit relatively few people doesn’t make sense fiscally or as a matter of conservation. Only 3 percent to 5 percent of forest products come from national forests. The easiest to reach timber has already been harvested. Plus, a road-building ban would ease erosion and other threats to water.

With more than 9.3 million acres, Idaho is second only to Alaska in its amount of roadless areas. Last December, the U.S. Agriculture Department approved a plan submitted by then-Gov. Jim Risch, a Republican, that banned road-building on much of the acreage protected by the Clinton rule.

Vast tracts of wilderness and roadless areas are what make Idaho such a physically stunning state. Risch correctly concluded that it wasn’t worth cashing that in for short-term economic gains that would benefit relatively few people.

Beyond the political back and forth, it’s clear that roadless rules are very popular. More than 2 million comments were registered during public comment periods, and the overwhelming majority of people didn’t want more roads built in national forests.

The current bill would sideline all the court cases and end the state-by-state approach to managing forests that belong to all Americans. The nation is overdue for an approach that is driven by realities, not grudges.