Should each of the 50 states be required to meet the same percentage of their lands be locked up into wilderness Areas? If so, how would it work and if not, why the unfair imbalance?
2007-11-24 15:47:28 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This is a great question and Ihave to laugh at some of the posts which scream out hypocrisy. If Wilderness is a great idea, then why not for all states? and why not the same percentage? I think we all have states we dont like something about and prefer to dump on, but how important is actual fairness to us? In states like CT and RI, where theres a will theres a way. If Wilderness is important, then it would be implemented in their backyards too. There is a huge hypocrisy here that shows and select states are being dumped on, and it is unfair and discriminatory to those dumped on states. True justice would be that they have a way to fight back but there is no true justice in America.
2007-11-25 04:46:30 · answer #1 · answered by Mountain Dew 88 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Every state SHOULD have at least 25% of it as protected Wilderness area. What is wrong with you people? So if wilderness areas interfere with industrial and residential ares, the answer is simple: plow down the industrial ares and plant trees, and protect that area. The loss of the industry wont hurt anyone but the neocons because the industrial groups donate so much to the conservatives anyway. For the displaced residential areas, we can relocate them like we do endangered species. Relocate them to a wonderful new environment where they can start their newfound lives over,,,and I know they will be very happy knowing their former homes are now turned into protected wilderness area and what a wonderful feeling they would have knowing they are helping me save the planet?
2007-11-25 06:06:56 · answer #2 · answered by Happy-go-Lucky 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think not. Some states have land that allow for good agriculture, others for raising cattle, others for other things. To treat each state like its land is useful in the same way as all the others doesn't seem fair. It would be ignoring climate, population, farming, etc. However, the states with more wilderness reserved by the government should receive more money than those with less wilderness.
Just my uneducated two cents.
2007-11-24 15:51:51 · answer #3 · answered by stephieSD 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Interesting question! I understand that some people wish their state had more public land and some people wish their state had less public land.
I, personally, wish my state had more public land. Our family gave up on the idea of camping without reservations a long time ago...takes all the spontaneity out of it. It does sometimes feel unfair because I know that people in other states have a lot more wilderness area in which to play, and some of it is federal land.
I do have a friend who wishes his state had less public land. Of course, this is a double-edged sword too, because landowners enjoy higher property value via the whole supply-and-demand thing. My friend also has the luxury of using lands that he does not own and of vistas that wouldn't be without the public lands.
It appears that our ancestors didn't plan this out very well.
2007-11-24 16:12:16 · answer #4 · answered by luv2bfit 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would say yes, but there is a major discrimination flaw in the wilderness areas to begin with. I have one h*** of a hard time getting my wheelchair up and around those areas, and without handicap access--those "PUBLIC" lands are discriminating against me because others can go hike in and see the wilderness, yet I cant because my access is blocked, so for all the Al Gores out there I would say give me the right to see it or get rid of it because it discriminates against the handicapped and its time the government got sued over it!
2007-11-25 12:25:27 · answer #5 · answered by Shoot-em-All 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Should Not Be Required but something that does automatically! Sadly there are people and states that don't see it as "To Their Advantage" so YES! But it would have to but Proportional to the Size of the State! California could not put aside the Same amount as Texas, Rode Island's area would be less then Texas and so on.
2007-11-25 10:46:12 · answer #6 · answered by sidecar0 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. They shouldn't because some simply have wilderness where almost no one lives while other have wilderness where they could make a civilization! The people with good land would get angry. If they did make this though they would most likely lose money.
2007-11-24 15:50:25 · answer #7 · answered by deathclaw6667776 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. I think that we need to have a balance between protected wilderness and developed areas that is healthy, however, such a policy would be irresponsible and not cost effective.
10% of Rhode Island would interfere with many establishments. 10% of alaska would interfere with almost nothing.
Corporations must be taken into amount first. They are essencial for the economy. Untouched environment is an accecory, nicety, at best.
2007-11-24 16:09:14 · answer #8 · answered by Content is another word for lazy 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nice idea, but not possible. States like Nevada, Wyoming and the Dakotas have far less development, and more capability for wilderness set asides. States like Conn., Mass. and others do have some land set aside, but can't match the level in wide open states like AK.
2007-11-24 16:02:29 · answer #9 · answered by A Plague on your houses 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Look on a map sometime! What 'wilderness' are you thinking of? How much is in New Hampshire or Rhode Island?
2007-11-24 16:07:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋