How much of the US would you like to see set aside for wild nature in percentage?

Answer 1

I think there's about enough. If we sent the illegals back to the border we would have allot more.

Answer 2

The United States Department of the Interior currently manages over 500 million acres or 20% of U.S. land. Include States' lands and you approach 35% of all land. The Bureau of Land Management does allow for mineral extraction on about 12%, but companies are required to keep their impact to a minnimum. If you look at the Alaskan North Slope, it is actually quite pristine. Extreme Enviro groups tend to just show pictures of the parking lot. Recent leaks in the pipeline spilled a few thousand gallons of oil, compared to other spills very small. Petrol companies cleaned up every drop or they'd be fined heavily by the U.S. Gov. Only Kenya, with 50% set aside as a preserve, exceeds the U.S. in percentace of protected land. I think the amount of land we have to work with is good, but I would like to see Wilderness areas managed differently. I preffer the idea of many small areas, all close enough to allow wildlife to roam between them, than larger and more isolated areas which can isolate populations and lead to eventual genetic bottlenecks. I also think there needs to be more restrictions on ORVs and Snowmobiles in these areas. Airplanes have to meet noise criteria, so should ORVs and Snowmobiles, so to preserve the natural quality of these lands. The real challenge is that the goals of land management are in opposition. On the one hand you want to protect what you've got, and on the other you've got to improve accessibility for the Citizens and Visitors who pay the bills.

Answer 3

A great deal of land should be set aside for preservation. But we need to be realistic and drill in both the Gulf, the Midwest, and Anwar. If we end the need of mideast oil, we won't have to worry as much about these punks setting off suitcase nukes in our country. Then again, the libs probably think that either muslims would never do that, even though they have stated they would, or think that nuclear fallout is definitely a good thing for the environment!

Answer 4

It's such a beautiful country.......such contrasting areas from coast to coast. Snowy Mountains, Desert...wonderful beaches....I'd have to be honest and suggest that it's probably too late to save the amount that should be saved....which is at least 75%
If it isn't set aside....and SOON...then Darwin's theory of evoluton will soon shock the world when animals & creatures can't take the bashing we're given them in the countryside and there will be mass extinctions of so many species, that there won't be anyone except us stoopid humans and our force-reared animals in tiny cages which will be reared solely for food.

Me personally, i don't wanna be the one to have to try and explain the reasons to my grandchildren why i shot the last grizzly bear just so that i could put a plaque on my wall.....

if we could set aside even more and ship all the oil company executives out to live in Darfur without anyone noticing....HEY, lets do it !!!

Answer 5

25% minimum, Remembering our housing throughout the country have backyards too. So the balance will be kept for survival if people would start growing their own food? And start fertilizing instead of artificial chemical grass. Trees are imperative to draw down oxygen. But inevitably it is being destroyed and sold out to foreigners with big bucks for big biz! The elites are now in power with the Dictator, Like Napoleon?
Good Luck

Answer 6

Well I would like too see about 30% set aside.

Answer 7

50%

Answer 8

20% ?

Answer 9

Depends upon how much oil is under there!