Like the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Park?
Or do you think corporations should be allowed to operate within these areas, come up with their own tourist operations, and maybe build some strip malls, mcdonalds, Wal-marts, hotels, if they think they can make some profit from it?
2007-12-13 04:27:59 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm not askin if they are. I'm asking SHOULD they be. Cons always get confused with these types of questions.
2007-12-13 04:33:52 · update #1
Yes, lands should be protected from greed. For some in life, there is never a place called "enough is enough". For some, if they have $200 million in cash and assets, they will still lie, cheat, and steal for more. Not all wealthy people are bad. It only takes a few extremists in any arena to make things bad for the rest.
2007-12-13 04:34:39 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The government should protect some of our natural gems. In Yosemite, things are changing. There's a wonderful transit system which cuts down on the pollution in the area. It's efficient, on time and very user friendly. Yosemite Valley is one of the most beautiful places in the world but with so many tourists, there's the potential for huge problems. I've seen a lot of positive strides made there to help preserve it.
2007-12-13 12:33:47 · answer #2 · answered by katydid 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think that definatly there should be some places conserved by the government. That way we never cut down all the trees or kill all the animals. Things these people need to live. Because you never know what will happen in the future we could be down to 2 miles of rain forest and all the cows could be extinct lol* if someone doesn't step in and protect it.
2007-12-13 12:32:16 · answer #3 · answered by gm 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why can't we drill for oil in Wal-mart after we build it in the middle of Lake Placid? Only a commie wouldn't want to build a McDonalds on top of George Washington's nose on Mount Rushmore!
2007-12-13 12:34:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think Government management is the best idea but I am not entirely behind the mechanism they use to protect these plays or gain the property
2007-12-13 12:32:19 · answer #5 · answered by Larry B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is tough to balance protecting a pristine wilderness or natural phenomenon and allowing public access to enjoy it.
In places like these, development should be kept to a minimum.
2007-12-13 13:54:06 · answer #6 · answered by mjmayer188 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Protect. There's plenty of open land for developers to plunder and also run down land for them to redevelop. Certain parks and monuments belong to the people and should be run by the government.
2007-12-13 12:31:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes I do believe they should be protected. I live in a very beautiful state. Development is rampant here. Many of us are doing battle to preserve it from these gluttonous, greedy factions.
2007-12-13 12:32:06 · answer #8 · answered by gone 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think they should open up some of those protected areas in the great northwest ( Alaska ) so we can drill for oil. We drill all the time around here in the lower states...and you know something.....I've never seen one dead deer around a drilling sight.
2007-12-13 12:36:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
wow fill in the Grand canyon and build a walmart!!! lol NOT!
2007-12-13 12:35:12 · answer #10 · answered by a person of interest 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋