How to add wilderness.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The House Resources Committee approved bills to expand wilderness in Oregon and Idaho on Wednesday. Both votes were unanimous, and both illustrate what it takes to move wilderness bills forward in a generally hostile political environment.

Among wilderness advocates, what's required is a recognition that something is infinitely better than nothing.

Congress hasn't approved a major expansion of wilderness in Oregon since 1984; the only additions in the past 22 years have been for special areas such as Steens Mountain in southeastern Oregon and Opal Creek east of Salem. No Idaho wilderness bill of any kind has been approved since 1980.

One bill moved forward Wednesday by the House committee would set aside 77,000 acres of the Mount Hood National Forest as wilderness. The other would designate 315,000 of wilderness in central Idaho. Both are the result of bipartisan efforts, consultations with local governments, and cooperation with affected interests.

The proposal for Oregon is co-sponsored by Rep. Greg Walden, R-Hood River, and Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Portland. Mount Hood is in Walden's district, and is the recreational backyard for Blumenauer's urban constituents. The two spent three days last summer hiking around the mountain, and stuck together through the lengthy nego- tiations over the bill's details.

Walden's support is essential - without it, no bill in the Republican-led House would have a chance. Blumenauer proposed a 400,000-acre expansion of Oregon wilderness in 2002, and it died for lack of Republican backing. It's the same story in the Senate, where Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden's proposal to add 177,000 acres of wilderness on Mount Hood died in 2004 because he failed to enlist the support of Republican Sen. Gordon Smith.

Idaho's entire congressional delegation is Republican, but Republicans are not reflexively opposed to wilderness. The recreational and environmental benefits of wild lands are increasingly valued in the fast-growing state. To win support, the Idaho bill needed to include benefits for affected local governments and to designate lands for use by off-road vehicles. Environmentalists had to swallow hard to accept those compromises. The alternative was to lengthen the 26-year losing streak for Idaho wilderness proposals.

Both bills still require the approval of the full House, the Senate and President Bush. But these bills have cleared an important hurdle, one that has blocked many proposals that came before.

There's more to be done to protect wilderness in both states, and further battles lie ahead. These bills, however, show what's needed to navigate the path toward victory.