Advocates say roadless policy spurs growth

A report just released by the World Wildlife Fund and the Oregon Natural Resources Council suggests that rural economic growth is linked to the presence of nearby roadless and protected lands.

The report is supportive of President Clinton's recent steps to alter public use and access on millions of acres of federal lands.

A joint news release by the WWF and ONRC quotes economist Rob Southwick, co-author of the report, as saying, "People and communities in counties with protected wilderness have witnessed increased economic growth and improved quality of life over the past 30 years."

Tim Lillebo of the ONRC is pleased with the results of the study which his organization and the WWF commissioned. "The report supports what many people have been saying all along: A healthy economy and a healthy environment go hand in hand," said Lillebo.

Open-access advocate Greg Thomas of Sisters didn't put much stock in the report. He also thinks it's ridiculous to conclude that the only reason people move to, or visit, places like Sisters is because of nearby roadless forests.

Thomas noted that even Southwick's quote does not specifically make a cause and effect link between growth and protected lands. He feels the report draws a lot of convenient conclusions which have no direct bearing on the data presented.

"That's how they do it," Thomas said, shaking his head. "They decide what they want to say, then they create reports to fit their conclusions; and, unfortunately, people believe it."

One of the report's key points is that retirees are flocking to rural areas near the wilderness. As one proof of economic benefit, the report says that government payments received by retirees in these areas tripled during the study period from 1969 to 1997 - providing a figure which the report says is much greater than the income generated by "extractive industries," such as logging, mining, and agriculture.

Thomas was irked by the report's reference to retirees. "They talk about the importance of these areas to retirees," he said. "Then they turn around and do away with the roads, so that older people -- who depend on vehicles -- can no longer have access to the forest."

Mickey Pearson of Bend is a wheel - chair-bound outdoorsman who has plenty to say on the subject. "My biggest problem is that they close a lot of the roads, and that shuts me out." Pearson has a pickup truck and ATV that are handicap-equipped, allowing him access to the backcountry.

"One of the things that's so frustrating to me," said Pearson, "and it happened out at Silver Lake -- I tried to get permission to use my ATV out there to hunt, and now they won't let me in."

Lillebo, however, emphasizes that the roadless policy makes economic good sense. The report glorifies the fruits of tourism and economic growth: "Income generated by lodging establishments grew 120 percent ...drinking and eating establishments grew 151percent and income from amusement and recreation services grew 459 percent."

The report also appears to dismiss the lumber and wood products industries as being of less importance in Oregon now that income from those sources has declined. However, the report fails to explore any relationship between that decline and the role of government cutbacks on logging of public lands and creation of more limited-access areas.

Lillebo's press release was accompanied by an informational brochure from The Wilderness Society. The Society makes some of the same points noted in the report and includes a graphic which claims that two-thirds of Oregonians favor a broadly-worded description of "Forest Protection."

No information on sampling techniques was included, which leaves open the question as to whether Oregonians from Sweet Home and Idanha were polled, or just Oregonians from Portland and Eugene.

Another relevant issue raised by the Wilderness Society asserts that cutting more trees, alone, does not guarantee jobs, since mechanized cutting technologies require fewer workers. The Society then makes a strong point that many lost jobs in the forest products industry are due to exportation of raw logs that could be processed within the state to provide employment.

This is a controversy that isn't likely to end anytime soon. Advocates on both extremes continue to fault the Forest Service for sticking to a middle ground that tries to balance the needs of both sides.