HELENA -- Sen. Conrad Burns may ax a provision he added to a bill earlier this year that allows a friend and campaign contributor to build a private road across public lands near the Crazy Mountains -- a move that angered some because it did not create equal public access to nearby public lands.

James Pendleton, a spokesman for Burns' Senate office, said this week that Burns didn't intend to make permanent the provision which, according to Forest Service officials in Montana, violates the agency's own public access rules.

"The language was inserted as a placeholder,'' Pendleton said.

Burns hoped the provision would encourage all the people involved in the dispute to come to some kind of agreement in a discussion Burns intends to coordinate, he said.

Pendleton said the provision, which has been attached to the bill since the summer, was a temporary "placeholder'' after a Lee Newspaper State Bureau reporter called about the controversy.

The announcement came as news to both local Forest Service officials who handled the earlier negotiations, and the state's largest hunting and fishing group, which opposed Burns' provision.

The Montana Wildlife Federation has not been contacted by Burn's office to be part of the discussion, said executive director Craig Sharpe.

"We would hope that they would invite us to the table, and we will try to have someone at the table,'' Sharpe said. "Hunters and anglers, especially those in southern and central Montana, are watching these negotiations and we think they are inappropriate, at least in the way they have occurred so far.''

Dave Wanderaas, acting lands program specialist for the Lewis and Clark National Forest, which handled the earlier negotiations, said he hasn't been contacted by Burns' office either.

At issue are roads on the east side of the Crazy Mountains, an area that has little public access to the Lewis and Clark and Gallatin National Forest lands that encompass the mountains.

Rancher Mac White, who said his family has known Burns for close to 30 years, wants to build a private road that would cross Forest Service lands so he can access almost two sections of his land now locked behind public land. White said the only way he can access the land now is by horseback or foot and the only cattle that graze on the land are those that wander in accidentally. Additionally, White said, forests on his land are overgrown and in need of care, but with no road, White is unable to thin them.

White has long been a campaign contributor to Republicans, including Burns. Records show White has donated $2,050 to Burns since at least 1994. His most recent donation came on May 30 this year, about a month before a committee of which Burns serves as chairman released a copy of the bill that included the provision for White's road.

White said his contribution had nothing to do with Burns' help in the matter and dismissed any suggestion otherwise as "outrageous.'' White said he had been working with Burns and the rest of Montana's Congressional delegation on his road problem for several years.

White approached local officials at the Lewis and Clark National Forest several years ago about building a road to his land.

Wanderaas, who works out of the agency's Great Falls and Harlowton offices, said the Forest Service allows landowners to build private roads across the public land, but rules require them to secure public access to landlocked public lands in return. In this case, Wanderaas said, White owns land several miles away from his would-be road that would gives access to Forest Service lands through an existing road, Big Elk Canyon Road.

As it stands, Wanderaas said, the only public access to the east side of the Crazies for some 30 miles is a campground and trailhead at Big Timber Canyon.

The agency told White he could build a road across public land if he would allow the public to drive across his land to access Big Elk Canyon Road.

That's where the negotiations broke down, Wanderaas said. White didn't want to allow the public to drive across his land, but said he'd let Forest Service employees do so.

But such "administrative access'' doesn't satisfy the agency's own public access rule, Wanderaas said, and the agency declined White's offer.

For his part, White said he has always allowed people to cross his land to access Big Elk Canyon Road; they only have to ask. He said he even told the Forest Service he'd continue to do so as part of the initial negotiations.

Pendleton said White came to Burns' office for help in 2004. White said he also talked to staff at Democrat Sen. Max Baucus' office and with Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg.

In late June, Burns' committee released its version of an Interior Department spending bill. Included in the bill was a provision that would direct the Forest Service to adopt White's plan: the rancher's road in exchange for administrative but no public access to Big Elk Canyon.

Wanderaas said the plan Burns outlined in the provision was "against our regulations and against our policies. It is not what we would desire. It is not the public interest.''

Still, he said he hoped the impasse could still be resolved through more talking and working things out with White.

Rehberg and Baucus also sent letters in support of White's road. Baucus' letter, sent last November to the head of the U.S. Forest Service, makes no mention of reciprocal public access. It mentions that White has agreed to allow administrative access to the Forest Service in exchange for his road.

Baucus ended his letter by asking the Forest Service chief to "see if the Forest Service can provide Mr. White with the access he needs to manage the forest health problem on his land.''

Pendleton said Burns intends to spearhead the new talks about the road after the Nov. 7 election. He said anyone who wants to be part of the talks should contact Burns' office.

"They are certainly welcome to put in their two cents' worth,'' Pendleton said.

Wanderaas said the Forest Service would be willing to go back to talks with White, but he said its position in favor of full public access would not change.

"Our position would have to remain on behalf of the public,'' he said. "We work for the public, for the public benefit and would make all efforts to ensure (access) into Big Elk Canyon.''