Protecting Lands Top Priority Columbia River Basin Residents Rank Commercial Use Lower

A new survey by faculty members at the University of Idaho Department of Geography found that Columbia River Basin residents overwhelmingly want their forests, rangelands and wilderness protected.

When asked to list the three most important ways federal lands should be managed, those surveyed put water and watershed protection at the top of the list, Harley Johansen and Gundars Rudzitis said.

The second most important use of federal lands cited was ecosystem protection, and third was recreation. Timber harvesting was the fourth most important public land use among those surveyed, followed by protecting wilderness values and grazing and ranching.

Overall, 76 percent of respondents said they favored a protective strategy for public lands. Only 23 percent favored commodity-based strategies such as logging, grazing, ranching and mining.

“The survey results should be useful to Congress and federal land managers. They show that when it comes to managing public lands, most people in the region want as their first priority protection and good stewardship of these lands,” Rudzitis said.

“Timber harvesting and other types of commodity production should not be the primary management objects of public lands management.”

A total of 571 randomly selected people participated in the mail survey that covered 100 counties from eastern Oregon and Washington through Idaho and into western Montana.

The results are accurate to within plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The sample was selected to represent the views of people living in the area covered by the Forest Service’s Upper Columbia River Basin Environmental Impact Statement. The so-called Eastside Ecosystem Management Project is managed by former Boise National Forest supervisor Steve Mealey.

Rudzitis said the survey found that people listed protection of public lands as their top priority regardless of how long they lived in the region.

“The notion that there are big differences between newcomers and old-timers when it comes to protecting the public lands simply is not true,” he said.

People were asked why they moved to or continue to live in the Columbia River Basin. Although job opportunity was the single most frequently cited response, it was given by only 34 percent of respondents.

The other 64 percent gave as reasons for moving and living in the region access to family and friends, pace of lifestyle, access to outdoor recreation, the landscape, scenery, general environment, climate and other factors related to living costs and low crime rates.

Overall, the quality of life in the Columbia Basin provided more reasons for being in the region than the availability of a job and a means of making a living.

“These results should be considered closely,” Rudzitis said. “They show that people in the region want a protective ecosystem approach to managing our public wildlands. To ignore them may lead to continued conflicts between residents and federal land managers.”