Document text
Our View: Environment should drive monument debate Sunday Sep 11, 2016 at 9:17 AM Sep 11, 2016 at 9:17 AM Backers of a proposed expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument east of Ashland have a good case to make when it comes to the environmental benefits of protecting the unique landscape and the flora and fauna it harbors. But the notion that expanding the boundaries would lead to a measurable boost in tourism is a stretch at best. President Bill Clinton created the existing 53,000-acre monument in 2000, after months of strenuous debate and stiff opposition from ranchers, timber interests and others. The borders have not changed since, although owners of private land within the monument have willingly sold about 13,000 acres to the federal government. The Bureau of Land Management is in charge of administering the monument, the first time the agency has been given that task. The monument designation means commercial logging is prohibited unless it enhances the ecology, mining banned and off-road vehicle use is not allowed. Other forms of recreation — hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding and mushroom gathering — continue to be permitted. The monument is unique in that it is the intersection of four distinct bioregions, a land bridge linking the Cascade and Siskiyou mountain ranges and their plant and animal species, including some that exist nowhere else on earth. That is good reason to protect it, and we supported the monument's initial creation. It may well be a good thing to expand the monument to include entire watersheds — something it does not do now — and to follow bird and animal habitat boundaries rather than arbitrary ones such as the California border. That's a debate worth having. But a decision to expand should be made based on what's best for the environment, not on some hypothetical increase in tourism dollars based on wishful thinking. The monument is not a tourist destination in the same sense that, say, the Oregon Caves National Monument is, nor is it likely to become one. Hikers, birders and anglers may visit the monument, and those who come to the region for Shakespeare, rafting or other pursuits may well add a side trip to hike or fish in the monument. But it's unlikely to be the primary reason they came here in the first place. Environmental preservation activists have long argued that "eco-tourism" can replace revenue once derived from logging, but there is little evidence the dollars are comparable. Beyond that, this expansion proposal comes late in President Obama's term in office, and proponents are clearly hoping he can be convinced to use his power under the Antiquities Act to approve it on his way out the door, just as Bill Clinton did in 2000. But the initial monument designation was heavily debated for months, with considerable public input. The expansion has not had the same exposure to to public, and it should. Protection of public land can be beneficial, but it is also permanent, and it deserves a full airing.