Like a zombie in a second-rate horror movie, the Hyalite timber sale is once again rising from the grave. Reaction is predictable: already on the defensive, the Forest Service promises a "kinder, gentler" project, while environmentalists scramble for silver bullets, trying desperately to send this beast to its grave. Resurrection of the Hyalite sale guarantees one thing—another lengthy, acrimonious and expensive fight.

This illustrates the difficulty of defining a future for the new West. This task is made harder by ill-planned resource extraction that ignores fundamental changes in and desires of local communities. Many ask why instead of acting as a constructive partner, the Forest Service behaves like a ten-year-old plinking hornets' nests in the neighbor's backyard? History offers some important insights.

The Forest Service is a Progressive Era brainchild. Progressives thought elite government planners could advance conservation with efficiency and justice. But their prescription of central planning for the local level demonstrated their great naiveté. Across 191 million acres of national forests and grasslands, we find politics trumping ecology, economics, equity, and ethics. The problems are not bad people, but rather politics and perverse incentives.

Driven by budgetary and political pressures, the Forest Service seems blind to the fundamental changes occurring throughout the West. Outside of a few isolated pockets, the West's economy is driven by the region's open spaces, especially its public lands. Their abundant amenity values (e.g., wilderness, clean air, fish, wildlife and recreation) attract talented entrepreneurs. Freed by email, FedEx and the internet, "modem cowboys" (and cowgirls) relocate to the region. Some are "funhogs", but all seek a simpler, less stressful life and environmental quality. Waves of new studies confirm this trend.

For example:

• in a survey questioning resident's attitudes toward public lands in the Columbia River Basin, Gundars Rudzitis of the University of Idaho found that a majority favor a "protective" approach as the first priority for public land management.

• in a study exploring the economic costs of protecting tracts of wilderness for large carnivores (i.e., wolves and grizzly bears) Ray Rasker of the Wilderness Society found that "wilderness counties" are experiencing some of the fastest growth in the region. He believes the influx of people is directly related to the area's environmental amenities. Ironically, one of the biggest challenges facing these counties is urban sprawl.

• in his recent book, Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies, University of Montana economics professor Tom Power found during a 24-year period in Montana's Flathead Valley that timber sales from the Flathead national forest declined 98 percent. During the same period, employment rose 133 percent.

Forces beyond our control are shaping the new economic landscape. In spite of changing realities, Western politicians continue to link agency budgets with meeting centrally planned commodity targets. Ironically, this bias towards extraction constrains the economic, social and cultural potential of local communities. It also explains why the Forest Service continues to offer counter-productive proposals.

Chief Judge Boyce Martin of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals realized this in his January 21, 1997 decision against the Forest Service for "biased" and "arbitrary" management (in The Sierra Club v. Jack Ward Thomas). He observed, "even when there may be more valuable uses for the land, [its political] biases cause the Forest Service to manage primarily to maximize timber outputs".

Reform is long overdue. Constructive change requires a major overhaul of the budgetary process. Hyalite Canyon is one of the most heavily used recreation areas in the region. But because the Forest Service can't charge and retain recreation fees, it has no incentive to improve recreational opportunities. If we are to change the direction of management, then the important feedback mechanisms inherent in the market process must be incorporated into Forest Service planning.

And there is still a future for the Forest Service. It has considerable expertise that could be applied to amenity and educational values-wilderness, wildlife and recreation. In a new role the Forest Service could advance our knowledge of forest systems while monitoring forest practices to protect against harm to ecological systems.

District Ranger Gene Gibson says his objective is to, "come up with a final decision that is environmentally responsible, economically feasible and socially acceptable". Despite his sincere motives, the Hyalite sale will likely fail on all points. Chief Judge Martin understands a fundamental truth when he writes the Forest Service makes decisions, "not because they are in the best interest of the American people, but because they benefit the Forest Service's fiscal interest." Until we fix the root problems, we are doomed to fighting recurrent battles with a bureaucratic juggernaut.