Does the Bush administration care about the environment or the sensitivities of conservation-minded voters? On western public lands issues environmental groups have successfully portrayed the Bush administration as pandering to the old Sagebrush Rebels and Wise Use constituencies. And although Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey is a former lobbyist for the timber industry, his plan to establish charter forests is worth considering.

The program would turn over management of one or two national forests to local trusts. Daniel Kemmis, director of the Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana, recently commented, "In broad terms, that is an excellent idea, and it should not be dismissed simply because it came from the Bush administration."

But many environmentalists insist the trust proposal is simply a ruse. They whine that federal control is essential to protect the West's public lands from rapacious westerners. This position is both paternalistic and ironic. History reveals that much environmental damage in the region resulted from federally approved and funded projects carried out by agencies seeking to maximize their appropriations. For example, the Forest Service's road network is over eight times the size of the U.S. Interstate Highway System.

Many environmental groups say federal forest management is shortsighted, subject to opportunistic congressional politics, unaccountable, and ecologically insensitive. Forest economist Randall O'Toole of the Thoreau Institute has demonstrated that these perverse outcomes are driven by the congressional budgetary process, not evil people. With this innovative proposal, the GOP has an opportunity to deal with these problems and reconnect with a natural constituency it has long neglected-well-educated, well-off folks who care about wilderness and wildlife habitat.

In 1967, I came to Bozeman and worked in the woods as a sawyer. That year 38.4 million board feet of timber were harvested from Gallatin National Forest and there were five sawmills in the area. In 2001, only one-tenth that amount was cut. Times have changed.

Today the West's attractive environment has tremendous and increasing economic value. Roadless lands, free-flowing rivers, national parks and forests, and healthy wildlife habitat attract well-educated, innovative entrepreneurs. Compared with earlier periods, the majority of people in the contemporary West are relatively well educated and wealthy. They not only seek environmental quality for themselves, but consider it an essential goal for a responsible culture.

Economist Don Coursey of the University of Chicago has demonstrated that environmental quality is a luxury good. For every 1 percent increase in income, Coursey's research shows, the demand for environmental quality rises 2.5 percent.

National forest management has its roots in the Progressive Era philosophy of good government through neutral science. The founders of the Forest Service believed that they could manage with efficiency and justice. Today, that agency's once-stellar reputation is sullied. Since the 1960s the Forest Service has been unable to adapt to changing social values, new ecological science, and an amenity-based Western economy. Forestry disputes are increasingly resolved by executive fiat, Congress, or the courts.

Here's a timeless truth: Centralized bureaucracies are ill suited to either commodity or amenity production. Politics, perverse incentives, and poor information doom good goals. Progress implies new institutional arrangements. And forest trusts hold great promise.

Trusts successfully manage independent schools, nonprofit hospitals, and museums. Conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy own and manage multiple-use lands. The boards of national forest trusts would have a fiduciary responsibility to manage for the land's highest values: wildlife, clean water, recreation, scenery. And, yes, in some cases timber. In fact, the sensitive harvest of trees improves habitat and reduces fire danger.

We recommend Gallatin National Forest and Coconino National Forest, near Flagstaff, Ariz., for the trial program. Both are located near university towns. They hold many well-organized Green organizations and traditional forestry interests. This implies that the local trusts created to manage the lands can see various sides. Surely projects would be closely monitored by community groups.

As Alexis de Tocqueville explained, Americans excel at building voluntary institutions that foster cooperative pursuit of shared interests. The Bush administration has an opportunity to prove its environmental sincerity by creating institutions that avoid the high environmental, ethical, economic costs, and paralysis of government ownership and political control. Intellectually responsible Greens will support and monitor this policy innovation. Many are sensitive. It's time for them to be alert to sensible reforms.