|
|
heritage forests campaign national survey
Republican Pollster American Viewpoint conducted a national survey of 1,000 registered voters for the Heritage Forests Campaign from December 28, 1999 through January 2, 2000. All interviews were conducted by telephone. The margin of error for this study is ±3.2%. To go straight to the poll data charts, click here.
Roadless Areas Protection Plan
76% support the roadless areas protection proposal, 19% oppose, with 5% undecided. 54% strongly favor and 11% strongly oppose.
·Men and women support the plan with similar totals - 73%-24% and 78% respectively.
·Support reaches 66% or greater with Men 18-44 / 45-64 / 65+.
·With women support achieves 71% or greater with each age cohort.
·72% of Seniors support the plan.
·By a 2:1 margin Republicans register support (62%-31%). This compares with 86% support for Democrats and 78% for Independents.
·65% of Conservatives support, as do 76% of those in Over $50K Households.
·A majority in each region, and men and women, feel that the U.S. does not have enough permanently protected land in our national forests.
National Forest Lands
54% state that the U.S. does not have enough permanently protected land in our national forests, 32% believe we have the right amount, and 6% feel too much is protected.
43% of Republicans believe that not enough land in our national forests is protected, 42% the right amount, and 6% too much land, compared with 54%/32% not enough-right amount for Democrats and 62%/25% not enough-right amount for Independents.
·50% or greater of respondents in each community type (urban / suburban / medium sized / small town / rural area) believe that not enough is protected.
60%, including 43% strongly, oppose allowing logging, mining, and other industrial activities on National Forest lands. 31%, including 10% strongly, favor.
·Greater than 60% oppose allowing logging, mining, and other industrial activities on National Forest lands in the East, South, and Midwest, while in the West 41% favor and 52% oppose. A majority of all age groups oppose these activities on National Forest lands.
·By a 41%-49% margin Republicans oppose logging etc., compared to 24%-66% for Democrats, and 29%-65% for Independents.
Arguments In Support of the Plan
By an 87%-11% margin, respondents find 'Protecting the last third of our wild National Forest lands is an important legacy for future generations' a convincing reason to support the plan. 65% found this very convincing.
·83% of men and 89% of women found this convincing, as did 82% of Seniors.
·81% of Republicans found this convincing, including 77% of GOP Men and 68% of GOP 65+. 82% of Conservatives found this convincing.
By an 83%-14% margin, respondents find 'Roadless, wild forest areas provide the best habitat for fish and wildlife' a convincing reason to support the plan. 57% found this very convincing.
80% of men and 86% of women found this convincing, as did 82% of Seniors.
·76% of Republicans found this convincing, including 72% of GOP Men and 64% of GOP 65+. 80% of Conservatives found this convincing.
By an 82%-15% margin, respondents find 'These wild but unprotected areas would remain open for most types of recreation, including hiking, hunting, and fishing, but would be protected from logging, new roads, mining, oil drilling, and off-road vehicles' a convincing reason to support the plan. 55% found this very convincing.
·78% of men, 86% of women, and 79% of Seniors found this convincing.
·74% of Republicans found this convincing, including 65% of GOP Men and 66% of GOP 65+. 76% of Conservatives found this convincing.
By a 76%-21% margin, respondents find 'Protecting roadless, wild forest areas is the best way to maintain clean drinking water that 60 million Americans rely on' a convincing reason to support the plan. 52% found this very convincing.
·71% of men and 80% of women found this convincing, as did 76% of Seniors.
65% of Republicans found this convincing, including 58% of GOP Men and 60% of GOP 65+. 72% of Conservatives found this convincing.
By a 65%-27% margin, respondents find 'According to the U.S. Forest Service, protected National Forest lands used for recreation will generate 20 times more money for the economy in the year 2000 than National Forest lands used for logging' a convincing reason to support the plan. 35% found this very convincing.
By a 59%-34% margin, respondents find 'Road building and logging in National Forests costs taxpayers money because hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent over the years subsidizing road building and logging for private timber companies. Taxpayers also pay for all future maintenance of logging roads' a convincing reason to support the plan. 35% found this very convincing.
By a 52%-40% margin, respondents find 'More than 50% of our National Forest land will remain open to logging, new roads, mining, oil drilling, and off-road vehicles' a convincing reason to support the plan. 23% found this very convincing.
This result is likely due to the fact that people want to see more forest lands protected and, as such, this 50% argument may not be a convincing reason to support the plan. This observation is evidenced by the 60% who oppose commercial uses of forest lands, and the 54% who believe that not enough National Forest land is protected.
Reasons to Oppose the Plan
The results yield two observations. First, the strength of the battery of arguments tested is evidenced by the fact that all but one garner at least a 40% 'convincing reason to oppose' score to a plan that has only 19% in opposition initially, and 13% consistently in opposition. Second, the strength of support for the plan is evidenced by the fact that after being presented with these arguments, 70% remain in favor.
By a 53%-41% margin, respondents find 'In order to protect jobs and families in rural communities that depend on commercial uses of National Forest land for their livelihood, these industries need roads and road access to remain healthy' a convincing reason to oppose the plan. 21% found this very convincing.
By a 53%-42% margin, respondents find 'Roads provide access for some types of recreation' a convincing reason to oppose the plan. 24% found this very convincing.
By a 48%-42% margin, respondents find 'This proposal entirely bypasses Congress and represents more federal intervention into states without sufficient local input into the handling of forest lands' a convincing reason to oppose the plan. 24% found this very convincing.
By a 47%-46% margin, respondents find 'Congress has a duty first and foremost to protect jobs and families in rural communities that depend on commercial uses of National Forest land' a convincing reason to oppose the plan. 18% found this very convincing.
By a 45%-46% margin, respondents find 'This proposal is a land grab by President Clinton that affects mining rights, logging, and the future availability of natural resources' a convincing reason to oppose the plan. 20% found this very convincing.
The remaining arguments garnered a plurality or majority of not very/not at all convinced.
Impact of Support for the Plan on Congress
58% would be more likely to vote for their Representative if he or she supported the plan and 17% would be less likely. 29% are much more likely and 9% much less likely. 16% said it would make no difference.
To see actual poll data, click here.
For more information about the poll results, call the Heritage Forests Campaign at 202-861-2242.
|
|
