The Trump Administration (R) has proposed repealing protections for roadless areas on nearly 45 million acres of our National Forests—lands critical to wildlife, watersheds and recreation. The 2001 Roadless Rule has been a political football since President Clinton (D) adopted it, with subsequent Republican administrations seeking to repeal it and Democratic ones defending it.

Little noticed in the latest fight is that the proposal excluded nearly 14 million acres of roadless areas in Idaho and Colorado from repeal. Both states chose to supplant the 2001 rule with their own versions developed through extensive stakeholder negotiations, tailoring protections to local needs.

Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) led Idaho’s effort while governor, resulting in a 2008 rule with buy-in from conservation and industry groups. Years later, Risch extolled the virtues of Idaho’s rule during a Senate hearing on forests.

If a Republican senator from a deep red state proudly defending roadless protections sounds unusual, it is. Conservation policy has become highly polarized, with Democrats pushing for stronger protections while Republicans often do the opposite. Policies enacted in one administration are often quickly rolled back by the next.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Our study, Durability by Design, examines what makes some conservation policies and initiatives more durable than others in the face of today’s political pendulum swings. We interviewed environmentalists, sportsmen, foresters, and former government officials, scoured the academic literature for relevant studies and examined dozens of case studies.

It turns out that durable conservation policy isn’t an accident. It is a function of the choices conservation advocates make about how they appeal to Americans’ values, whom they engage, what policies they choose, and how they plan for implementation.

Values first, economics close behind

The most durable conservation efforts are rooted in values that cross partisan lines—clean water, healthy wildlife, places to hunt and fish, landscapes woven into community identity. When conservation advocates lead with ideological arguments or policies developed without local or state input, they risk a political backlash among the very constituencies they need for long-term durability.

Economics matter, too. When conservation imposes real economic costs on local communities without providing compensating benefits, it generates stubborn opposition. When it creates economic opportunities—for recreation, outfitters, farmers and ranchers who are rewarded for stewardship—conservation generates durable support.

Broad coalitions

Successful policies and initiatives inevitably are driven by broad coalitions that include stakeholders from across the political spectrum. The Black Bear Conservation Committee brought together industry, conservationists, and government officials in 1992 when the Louisiana Black Bear was listed under the Endangered Species Act. Its “Southern Rules of Engagement” required, among other things, that participants “pick solutions, not fights.” The bear was delisted in 2016.

Diverse coalitions can also make the difference when opposing destructive projects. The campaign in opposition to the Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska, mobilized Indigenous groups, commercial and sport fishermen, tourism interests and conservation groups to conserve the headwaters of one of the world's most productive fisheries, helping convince both of Alaska's Republican senators to oppose the mine.

Policies that defend themselves

Well-designed conservation policies also generate their own defenders. Farm Bill conservation programs, which provide incentives for private land stewardship, have earned strong support from farmers, ranchers, and conservationists. The NRCS Sage Grouse Initiative, begun in 2010 to forestall listing of the bird, has enrolled over 10.5 million acres across more than 3,000 western ranches. Its tagline, “what's good for the bird is good for the herd,” has won over ranchers and greens alike.

Implementation is where policies live or die

Of course, smart policy backed by broad coalitions can be undone by inadequate staffing and funding. Still, some well-designed policies with bipartisan support have managed to persist and even prosper during turbulent times.

Witness efforts to conserve big game migration corridors in the West. Trump’s first Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke (R-MT), directed his department to conserve corridors for elk and other big game. President Biden (D) kept it, and his Migratory Big Game Initiative committed $500 million to voluntary conservation of corridors on working lands in partnership with Gov. Mark Gordon (R-WY). The Trump Administration later extended these efforts through USDA’s Migratory Big Game Framework. Big game conservation is here to stay.

The harder work

Durable conservation policy requires the patient work of building relationships, the discipline of designing for breadth rather than purity, and the strategic foresight to invest in institutions and communities. That work is harder than winning a single legislative battle or policy campaign. But it is the work that produces conservation that lasts.

These lessons are why the American Nature Strategy is built the way it is: starting where conservation still wins across party lines, and designing every win to survive the next election.