|
This might be a bit tangential, but I've read before that most of the national parks and other protected areas in the United States are in the North West-ish (i.e. Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier Ntl. parks, as well as huge parts of Alaska), which kind of makes sense from a pragmatic point of view since states like Wyoming and Montana have a much shorter history of intensive settlement and farming, still have very small populations that reduces pressure on the land, and of course the landscapes are breathtaking compared to most of the rest of the country (and these parks were as much set up to preserve such vistas as well as the wildlife). However I've heard from a lot of environmentalists and biologists that if the aim of national parks should be to protect unique biodiversity then the current distribution of parks in America is extremely lopsided, the areas that have the massive parks aren't terribly bio-diverse and if that's a primary concern then the its actually mostly in the southeast of the country, what I guess might be called the 'Deep South', that large areas should be set aside, but as luck would have it the South is one of the least protected parts of the country. Have their been many recent initiatives to create more national parks in the South or other ways to preserve its biodiversity and unique environments in light of this?
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:23 |
|