Southern Oregon's Cascade-Siskiyou is an unlikely place to fight over a national monument. It is, after all, already a national monument.

But since ecologists recommended a massive 65,000-acre expansion - in effect doubling the size of the federal monument - Cascade-Siskiyou has quietly become an important battleground in the nationwide debate over federal lands.

Environmentalists and scientists say further protection is necessary to protect a vulnerable ecosystem from development and climate change. Local ranchers and loggers contend that the land is rich with natural resources necessary to keep their local economies afloat. Both sides vehemently disagree with how the land should be managed.

Sound familiar? It should.

The battle is more than a century old in the Pacific Northwest, even older than the 1906 Antiquities Act that gave sitting presidents the power to declare national monuments in the first place. President Barack Obama has already declared more monuments than any other president, and as his final term in office winds down, many anxiously await any further designations.

There are dozens of potential monument sites across the country, but all indicators give the Cascade-Siskiyou expansion a better shot than most: It has support from both Oregon senators, attention from the U.S. Department of the Interior and is far less of a political grenade than, say, Bears Ears or the Owyhee Canyonlands, which have drawn intense scrutiny nationwide.

It would be a huge win for environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest, but the ranchers and loggers - whose livelihoods stand to be most affected - don't see it that way.

THE LONG FIGHT

Tom Mallams is exhausted. The longtime rancher and Klamath County commissioner has been fighting this fight for decades, he said, and it's taken a toll.

"People here are worn out," Mallams said. "Some people get to the point where - I just can't do it any longer. I don't have the spirit to do it."

Yet Mallams finds himself in a familiar position, defending private land management practices and issuing stern warnings about what he sees as the failings of the federal government. After all these years, his argument has been whittled down to a plea for balance.

The commissioner's big idea these days is what he calls a "net zero" policy, under which the federal government releases an acre of land for every new acre it protects. The federal government simply can't manage all of its land, he argued, so why should they manage more?

A map of the proposed expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Southern Oregon.

"The government's not supposed to be in control of that much," Mallams said. "Most of our land is tied up, you can't use it."

Many local economies in southern Oregon rely on logging and grazing, and "locking up" the land halts the ability to fully utilize those natural resources. Furthermore, monument opponents contend, federal mismanagement makes those valuable lands more vulnerable to devastating wildfire.

One of the most visible critics, at Cascade-Siskiyou and elsewhere, has been the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, which has contributed money to campaigns battling new designation. Since conservationists started floating the idea of expanding Cascade-Siskiyou, the association's response has been a firm and overwhelming "no."

"It's a tragic situation," said Jerome Rosa, executive director of the association. "This is a really unique area in that there's some really high quality graze land in there, as well as some high quality timber."

No one disputes that the land at Cascade-Siskiyou - considered an "ecological wonder" - is pristine, but the agreement falls apart upon the decision about what should be done with it, and who should be in charge of that decision.

Rosa said he thinks private landowners should continue to control the land in the proposed expansion. Mallams can compromise for a more balanced approach. But there's a very good chance that neither man will get his way in southern Oregon.

THE ECOLOGICAL WONDER

Standing tall on the other side of the debate is a coalition of lawmakers, conservationists and scientists, all of whom argue passionately for the expansion of Cascade-Siskiyou.

Their position isn't about economics (though they do tout an increase in tourism), nor management of lands (the wilder, the better, they say). The important issue to that coalition is the protection of a valuable and vulnerable ecosystem, threatened by development and perhaps something bigger: climate change.

"There is clear evidence that significant changes in environmental conditions are already underway," said Jack Williams, senior scientist of Trout Unlimited. "Uncertainties inevitably remain about the magnitude and impact of climate change in our region."

The proposed expansion stretches primarily to higher elevations, he explained, in an effort to protect the watershed in Cascade-Siskiyou, which sits at the convergence of three mountain ranges. Timber, cattle and development can have adverse effects on the watershed, and the current boundaries just aren't enough for those seeking a more pristine and protected environment, Williams said.

Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley agree. In an August letter addressed to Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, they lamented that "the original boundary has left a patch work of vital habitats and watersheds unprotected." The goal of the expansion is to patch up those holes, keeping private land private but requiring certain environmental standards from those on the land.

That's where things get tricky. Since Cascade-Siskiyou is an existing monument, the current debate is colored by years of real experience there. Since President Bill Clinton declared the monument in 2000, the Bureau of Land Management and local landowners have worked together, to mixed results.

Mallams has seen landowners sell off their property to the government, and while they certainly made money on the deals, he sees the circumstances as suspect. Ranchers have been coerced or confused into selling, he said, or else have been hit by strong environmental regulations.

Those in the tourism industry, meanwhile, are doing just fine. Pam Marsh, an Ashland City Council member who owns property within the monument, said the designation has been a boon to her and her family. They run a lodge, Green Springs Inn and Cabins, on their land, and have expanded as more tourists have come through.

"It's not the Grand Canyon," she said, but it's still a good opportunity.

Ultimately, this decision to expand or not rests with President Obama, who will make any further designations before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump on Jan. 20. The swing in politics has both sides riled up on the issue of land management.

Conservationists are itching to protect as much land as possible before Trump, who has vocally opposed monuments, comes into office. Those against federal land management see the incoming Trump administration as an opportunity to either roll back designations or redefine them.

Mallams, still hopeful for a balanced approach to the management of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, said the politics might very well swing in his favor.

"I think now is the time to do it. Especially with Trump as President," he said.

--Jamie Hale | jhale@oregonian.com | @HaleJamesB