The Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011 (H.R. 1581) is bad for wildlife and wildlife habitat and bodes an ill wind for the future of hunting and angling in Idaho and throughout the Western United States. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), would withdraw protection from millions of acres of roadless areas protected under the 2001 roadless rule that are not currently recommended for wilderness. This assault on our remaining roadless lands comes with no process for public input.

In contrast, the public input process that led to the development of the 2001 Roadless Rule yielded 1.6 million comments, with 90 percent in favor of the plan. Idaho alone has 9.3 million acres of inventoried roadless land that was afforded protection under the state-specific Idaho Roadless Rule after extensive public input.

Roadless areas are the gem of America’s backcountry, providing critical habitat and refuge for fish and wildlife. The benefits nonmotorized backcountry areas provide to wildlife are well-documented in scientific literature. States fortunate to still contain large backcountry areas (like Idaho and Montana) are able to offer longer and more liberal hunting seasons without resorting to a lottery-style controlled hunt system. Longer, more liberal hunting seasons result in more hunter opportunity, more days afield, and ultimately more money spent by hunters and anglers in our rural communities.

Surprisingly, in spite of the documented and obvious benefits to wildlife that roadless areas provide, a letter in support of the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act was recently generated and signed by several groups purporting to represent sportsmen. Included in the stated reasoning for their support is that the current management scheme “manages much of that land in ways that prohibit road construction and hunter access.” Presumably, this matches the agenda of corporate sponsorships whose “must have” list for hunters includes noise-reducing mufflers and heated handlebar grips. It certainly does not meet any criteria that benefit big game, especially biologically and economically significant mature bull elk.

Incredibly, another claim by groups supporting the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act is that current levels of protection for roadless areas must be removed to increase hunter retention and recruitment. This argument is unfounded. I would agree that less access has had a great impact on hunter retention and recruitment. The truth is that access has been reduced on private land, not public, for reasons that are rooted in changing societal demographics. While this is a major issue that sportsmen will wrestle with into the future, the answer is not to increase big game vulnerability on public lands that provide refuge for big game. Increased motorized access has been shown to increase big game vulnerability to hunter harvest, which in turn leads to shorter, more restrictive hunting seasons and, ultimately, a reduction in sportsman opportunity. Reductions in sportsman opportunity on public land will most definitely have a negative impact on hunter recruitment and retention.

The Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act is not focused on increasing hunter retention and recruitment. It is not about “habitat improvement” projects or increasing access for the young and infirm. It is about eliminating protection for our last remaining roadless areas – protection that a majority of Americans support. Many of us in this region support conservation and sportsmen’s organizations with our time and money. It is time to ask where the organizations you support stand on this critical issue.