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
The Forest Service, NPS and BLM own over 500 million acres or 25% of the country's land. Much (if not most) acquired randomly with no regard for its nature, science, recreational value. 84% of Nevada is federal land. 57% of Utah. You would put an outright ban on selling any of that? 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.
But it intentially wasn't. That way it is easier to manipulate the data to support an agenda.
"But it intentially (sic) wasn't. That way it is easier to manipulate the data to support an agenda."
That's a pretty big claim. Can you back it up?
By the way, it's not at all uncommon for Federal land to be sold.
Lee - check out the bios of the poll authors. These are excerpts taken from their websites.
Weigel also has a unique niche as a “conservative conservationist.” She has polled extensively for conservation organizations, including The Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, National Wildlife Federation, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Wilderness Society, Smart Growth America, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. This has included extensive research on energy policy, land conservation, and water quality issues.
Metz has provided research to win some of the nation's most expensive and contentious ballot measure campaigns. These include all of the largest conservation finance measures in national history, including five successful statewide bond measures providing $15 billion to protect land and water in California, as well as major statewide measures in Minnesota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Oregon. In 2010 his research helped guide the campaign against California's Proposition 23 to an overwhelming victory with 62 percent of the vote, successfully defending the nation's strongest state law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. His research on the issue of “regulatory takings” helped the environmental community reverse a string of ballot measure losses and win five consecutive campaigns in California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska.
No - no bias there. No Agenda. These are two professional "conservationist" whose job it is to influence public opinion in favor of their clients including The Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, National Wildlife Federation, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Wilderness Society, Smart Growth America, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solution.
Sounds like they do some good work. We need more folks like them.
Yes Lee, deceiving the public is "such good work". You know like "hide the decline".
Well, I'm sure other Travelers can make their own decisions about this. I'll leave it to them.
Sure. I would love to know what other readers agree with you that deceiving the public is "good work".
But first, deceit must be proved. There are many reputable researchers on all sides of every question. Opinions about their level of "reputability" are not proof. Just because someone doesn't agree with their conclusions does not mean the research was not properly done.
I wish this article had included more information about this survey -- questions asked and other important things. Then we would all be able to better judge the quality of the study.
But based on personal experience and conversations with others in Utah, and news reports here, I believe the survey was a pretty good reflection of opinions here.