Abandonment of federal conservation rules for 58 million acres of pristine national forests defies public opinion, insults the environment and pummels the treasury.

Congressional disenchantment with heavy federal subsidies for the construction, maintenance and decommissioning of commercial logging roads was one push behind the President Bill Clinton-era rules. Indeed, the proximity of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to the last president seems to be the only reason the current administration worked so hard to ditch the rules. They were the product of three years of work by the U.S. Forest Service to end expensive road-building in remote forests in 38 states, but primarily in 12 Western states. The rules, shaped by hundreds of public meetings and more than a million written comments, sought to balance local concerns.

The policy was subject to management plans at individual national forests, and worked to sustain existing patterns of recreation, grazing and hunting and fishing. So-called stewardship logging allowed for some harvest and road-building to deal with wildfire hazards, habitat improvements and unique ecological circumstances.

Instead, the rollback opens up tens of millions of acres of timberland to logging and commercial ventures. Governors can oppose the removal of roadless protections on federal land in their states or cheer them, although the final decision rests with the Forest Service. An element of protecting federal forests is now subject to the whims of political turnover in state capitals.

The Bush administration's pursuit of the roadless rules is an echo of the fight over oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The victory carries more symbolic importance than practical value.

Roadless policy covered almost 60 million acres — an enormous figure — but still less than a third of the 191 million acres of national forests already open to logging, mining, recreation and other activities.

National forests are not wilderness areas. They may well be the working forests of distant generations. Such is the legacy they represent: the stewardship responsibility current generations have now. We have a duty to protect them from easy exploitation in the name of quick profits.

If Congress is not offended by the environmental assault, where are the budget hawks?