A poll of Western attitudes on the environment shows some disagreement with politicians over public lands stewardship and energy generation.
The poll of 2,400 voters in Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Montana shows they view public lands as "essential" to their states' economies and their overall quality of life. The poll was conducted January 5-10 for the Colorado College State of the Rockies Project.
“Westerners see the permanent protection of their public lands as an economic imperative, and essential to their quality of life,” said Walt Hecox, PhD., a Colorado College economist and State of the Rockies Project faculty director. “Decision-makers would do well to take notice and cure the often one-sided tendency to pursue development rather than protection that we’ve seen emerge over the last four years.”
The poll found that 91 percent of the respondents were in agreement that national parks, forests, monuments and wildlife areas were essential to their state’s economy. Further, 71 percent oppose proposals to sell off public lands, and overwhelmingly reject arguments for the sale of public lands.
Officials in Utah and New Mexico have called on the federal government to turn over most public lands to the states.
Highlights from the 2013 Conservation in the West poll:
• 79 percent believe public lands support their economy and enhance their overall quality of life.
• 74 percent believe national parks, forests, monuments, and wildlife areas help attract high quality employers and good jobs to their state.
• 71 percent believe selling off public lands to corporations for development would hurt their economy and quality of life.
• 52 percent perceive public lands to be a job creator in their state.
The survey also illuminates Westerners’ view of energy production. For the second year in a row, Westerners vastly prefer that renewable energy development be encouraged in their state, rather than nuclear power or fossil fuels. In Utah, where the state supported an open pit coal mine close to Bryce Canyon National Park, just 16 percent of the respondents favored coal as an energy source, according to the poll.
When it comes to specific approaches to energy sources, those polled in the six states overall rated solar, wind, and natural gas sources ahead of "energy efficient imports," oil, nuclear, and coal. Arizonans favored solar the most, with 74 percent favoring that form of renewable energy, while 56 percent of those contacted in Colorado had wind energy at the top of their list.
When it comes to the politics of conservation, the polling found that "voters are inclined to take a positive view of a candidate who espouses pro-conservation positions. For example, when asked about a candidate who supports protecting public lands, a majority of voters say that position alone would give them a 'more favorable' impression of that candidate. Moreover, voters are even more positively impressed with a pro-conservation GOP candidate than with a Democratic candidate."
And yet, "Most Westerners acknowledge they are unaware of the record of their member of Congress on protecting land, air and water," the poll discovered.
They do, however, pay attention to their natural resources.
When it comes to water, already a precious resource in the Intermountain West, "87% say that the low water level in rivers is a serious problem, with a significant majority (60%) saying it is an 'extremely serious' or 'very serious' problem. Worries about low levels of water in rivers are especially pronounced in New Mexico (83% extremely/very serious), Colorado (69%), and Arizona (59%)."
"In fact, in what may be unprecedented concern about the state of rivers – voters in Colorado and Wyoming are more likely to say the state of rivers is a 'very serious' problem than say the same for economic concerns (by 11 and 23 points, respectively). That said, throughout the region two-thirds or more say that low water levels in rivers are a problem."
You can find all the reports that resulted from this polling at this site.
Comments
I agree with David Crowl's last comment--where does it stop? And ecbuck, you lost me when you made this comment: "Drive US 50 through Nevada and Utah and then tell me how the sale of some of that land would impact hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation in general." Our public lands have a lot more value than just what they can provide to humans...they will likely provide the last bits of almost natural habitat for native species. It is past time to start protecting land for the sake of the land, not just for what we want to "do" with it.
Justin - It isn't so much the questions is is the way the data is used. Although there is some issues with the question methodology. Notice for the problems there are three possible responses that it is a problem and only one that it isn't. That clearly skews the responses to their being a problem.
The author of this piece is trying to show that the politicians aren't in line with the thoughts of the people. But, did the author give the politicians the same survey to reach that conclusion? No, although that would have been the most accurate way to compare their positions. Instead they compared the survey responses to political actions. The problem is, those political actions aren't made in a vacuum. The politicians have to consider the consequences of their decisions both intended and unintended. They need to set priorities. Everyone wants open space, clean water, less pollution but those come at a cost of jobs, dependence on foreign oil, cuts to spending on health care all of which ranked higher as concerns.
imtnbike nailed it at the start of this thread. Its easy to say you want things. It is quite a different story when you have to make decisions that have a cost.
The survey offers issue-by-issue two contrarian viewpoints, and respondents can agree/disagree with either. That's routine polling. If that makes it a "totally bogus and deceitful poll," then I'm not sure what polls wouldn't be.
Not exactly. It states that "a poll of Western attitudes on the environment shows some disagreement with politicians over public lands stewardship and energy generation." If you place the answers given by repsondents side-by-side with public statements made by, say, Steve Pearce, Rob Bishop, Doc Hastings, the point bears out pretty clearly.
Once again Justin, you ignore that the politicians statements are made made in the context of a multitude of competing issues and with the cost and consequenses of such actions in mind. They are not blissfully ignorant, black and white decisions as the either or questions would imply.
I'm not ignoring that. It just doesn't have anything to do with the point I am making. (Take another look at my posts above.)
Justin and Barbara, you can spend eternity "discussing" things with ec, but he'll ignore, twist, slip, slide and blither until long after the sun goes down. He has officially declared the poll to be "bogus" so that is all anyone needs to know.
Spouting anti-environmental stuff is apparently some sort of hobby -- even though he won't admit to being in the anti-environmental camp. Personally, I think it's pathetic that anyone can't see the beauty around us for the dollars in the way. But that's just my opinion and until someone can provide a poll that convinces me that dollars are more important than our planet, I probably won't change my thinking.
Your posts make sense and that apparently upsets him. But keep posting because keeping folks like him in a froth is a lot of fun when the weather outside is frightful.
Rob Bishop got shot down on a couple of items in the last session, so he's at it again. Here are two items from today's NPS Digest's legislative action report:
H.R. 2398 (Bishop, R-UT-1), to prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on Federal lands that impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.
That one is a resurrection of his attempt to strip away any environmental regulations on lands within 100 miles of our borders.
The next one contains some blatant gifts to the ORV industry:
On June 27th, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation (Bishop) will hold an oversight hearing on “Outdoor Recreation Opportunities on State, Local and Federal Land.” The hearing is scheduled for 2:00 pm in 1334 Longworth. The Department was not invited to testify.
The fact that the department was not invited to testify indicates that Bishop is using one of this favorite tactics from his "town hall meetings." He's very good at controlling the questions and statements that might come from the crowd. The usual practice at one of his sessions is to require that attendees submit questions or comment in writing to some of his minions at the meeting. They are then able to screen out any that may be embarrassing or require an honest answer.
Thanks for the post, Lee.