More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Income ($50K-$75K) voters
Last answered 6 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Income ($50K-$75K) voters.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Aug 18, 2012. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Income data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
8 years ago by indiatimes.com
8 years ago by net.au
8 years ago by youtube.com
8 years ago by politicalears.com
10 years ago by youtube.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
It is my view parks should have portions that would be farmed for timber for example and refurbished. Use the example of Epcot using hydroponic growth for food. If they were a self sustaining by using their products for monies that would only be given back to the parks. I have seen where trees die because they have not thinned out, so not touching something does not always guarantee the best solution.
Secondly, the states that have these parks should have a vote in the decision making. 9 years ago from a Republican in Ocala, FL
Cost too much for government to do this...hire privately to preserve and protect. 9 years ago from a Republican in Auburn, ME
They should be preserved, but the gov should have more important bills to pay. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in De Witt, IA
National Parks are okay as is, but Bureau of Land Management lands all need to be auctioned off. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Laramie, WY
Yes, but with no drilling or mining. There should be more publicly available fruit and vegetable plants, and the wildlife and trees should still be protected. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Little Rock, AR
State governments should control parks, not the federal government. 9 years ago from a Republican in Rancho Cucamonga, CA
No, because I think it should be privatized. 9 years ago from a Republican in Nashua, NH
Allow limited logging and possible drilling and mining and allow more public access. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Summerfield, FL
No i believe that the national parks should be privately owned and operated. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Whitehall, PA
The National Parks should be returned to their rightful and legal owner: The Native American Nation. 9 years ago from a Green in Conshohocken, PA
Yes, but allow the states to manage all aspects of the land. The Federal Government should only be involved in an oversight capacity. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Walton, KY
Yes, but allow more public access alonside limited logging, drilling, and mining. 9 years ago from a Republican in Tulare, CA
National parks, such as Yosemite should be controlled by the local residents that reside in the states where the parks are located, but should remain protected by the federal government. The preservation should be solely under the control of those who... 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Leo, IN
The PEOPLE should protect and preserve the National Parks of their own free will. Instill the values that President Theodore Roosevelt had within our children as well as ourselves. He believed in conservation and so should we otherwise we shall all... 9 years ago from a Green in Pinehurst, TX
Federal government never runs anything well. They should not be allowed to use parks as a way to prevent drilling for oil and gas. The parks should not be tools of the Sierra Club or the other wacko tree huggers. 9 years ago from a Republican in Springfield, MO
Yes, but we must fund those protections adequately, allowing limited non-damaging usage of those parklands. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Albuquerque, NM
add solar panels and wind turbines. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Newark, NY
I don't want all of our National Parks to disappear but I think the fed could allow some drilling to take place so that it creates jobs and oil money is not sent overseas to money hungry Arabs to be used against us. 9 years ago from a Republican in Lemoyne, PA
Yes they should be preserved but should be public land. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Incline Village, NV
No, it is not clear how well these lands are protected given all the logging and cattle ranching. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Fort Pierce, FL
Yes, with the help of private non profit organizations, while keeping the economy in mind. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Northampton, PA
Long-term agreements should be available to local and state governments as well as certain corporate entities as ANYONE manages more efficiently than the Feds. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Kent, WA
Yes, but not lower the protection slightly. 9 years ago from a Republican in Blackstone, IL
Yes, but if the gov't is going to lease property within these spaces to private business, they should not be allowed to just shut the privately owned business down. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Capitol Heights, MD
Our National Parks are a treasure of open lands that should be preserved for as long as is practical to prevent the loss of all of our wilderness areas. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Pflugerville, TX
Public lands should be irrevocably preserved and protected by our Federal Government for wildlife habitat and recreation, NOT for corporate use. Wildlife should have precedence over grazing livestock and there should be no drilling, mining or other... 9 years ago from a Democrat in Lebanon, OR