I usually read PERC Reports to force me to see new ways of accomplishing protection of the environment. This stimulus is provided by the economic perspective you sometimes bring to many problems. However, in "End of the Road" (June 2000), the "P" in your names, which stands for "political," is peeking through a disapearing veneer of economics. Let's look briefly at some facts (something I would have expected of PERC).

The Forest Service has approximately 400,000 miles of existing roads and an $8.5 billion maintenance backlog. We cannot take care of the roads we already have.

Some 600 American communities depend upon national forest roadless areas for their watersheds. Road building contributes to sedimentation and watershed degradation. The conservative approach is to err on the side of caution. Any risk of detriment to our watersheds must be avoided.

Road building fragments wildlife habitat and facilitates poaching. Here in New Mexico, wildlife is the foundation of a booming industry. The largest outfitting business in the United States supports roadless area protection because it protects the firm's economic base. There is also considerable evidence that roads into our forests are like hypodermic needles injecting invasive plant species that can wreak havoc upon ecosystems.

More roads do not increase the recreational quality of our forests. That is why nearly every major outdoor recreation council--except those funded by Japanese off-road-vehicle manufacturers--have endorsed the roadless policy.

GOP pollster Linda DiVall reports that Republicans by 2-to-1 support the proposed roadless protections. Forest Service road building has been a bad deal for taxpayers and an even worse bargain for the environment. It is time to put an end to the waste, regardless of who gets the credit.