which park system would be a better/safer place for endangered species?

Question

would it be:

state park, national park, national monument, national wildlife refuge, national wilderness area, national forest


AND WHY??


thanks guys,

Answer 1

Assuming the habitat is the same? equally suitable for the species? An endangered species is federally protected no matter what land it is on..so no one can harm it, regardless of the jurisdiction that the land comes under. But my first pick is a national wildlife refuge.

State and national parks..and national monuments are more designed for recreational use. Nature is included..but it has a heavy human interaction factor.

National forests are designed to renew natural forest areas and usually have been formerly logged. For some species that are at home here it is a very good place..others might require more mature areas, or a different species mix. I think of it as more of a protection of natural timber resources.

National wilderness areas are good wild areas that are to be left alone. For some species this might work well.

National wildlife refuges would be best, because this is the place where wildlife is the first concern. All other plans are made based on the needs of the wildlife. If resources are scarce..food items might be planted. Whatever the needs of the endangered species are, there will be someone actively working to make sure that those needs are met. (Although it is possible and probable that measures would be taken in other places)