More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Income ($100K-$150K) voters
Last answered 6 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Income ($100K-$150K) 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
The gov does own too much land. Each state should be able be have eligible voters decide if some land should be opened for recreation or industry, or sale to pay down the national debt (non-citizens or foreign countries should never be allowed to own any... 9 years ago from a Republican in Stewartstown, PA
Someone should protect them, but I don't know if the best caretaker is the government. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Cary, NC
Parks should be administered, but they should not be expected to remain unchanged. 9 years ago from a Republican in Pearland, TX
If we do not have the Feds protection the parks, no one else will, because the state or private people will one day need money, and they will sell off the parks to the highest bidder and what once was free to all will now become private profit for one. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Duluth, GA
Choose more wisely which lands deserve to be declared "Parks." Remove the ultra-ego's of the N.P.S to declare any property a "Park" because of an inflated individual ego!. 9 years ago from a Democrat in Arnold, MO
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
The Federal Government cannot be trusted. 9 years ago from a Green in San Francisco, CA
State governments should control parks, not the federal government. 9 years ago from a Republican in Rancho Cucamonga, CA
No, and they shouldn't be government property in the first place. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Annapolis, MD
Yes, expand the government's domain to protect more land and stop logging, drilling and mining. 9 years ago from a Democrat in San Luis Obispo, CA
Yes, but the funding should from the community of citizens. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Dover, NJ
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, but the BLM should be forced to follow Federal law regarding wild horses and burros, allowing them to remain on lands designated for them. Thy should do away with holding facilities and return captured horses to the wild. 9 years ago from a Republican in Harrods Creek, KY
Yes, but allow limited logging, drilling and mining to help bring in more federal and private income, and allow more recreational opportunities to help increase the recreation economy as well. 9 years ago from a Republican in Saginaw, MO
Yes, but allow more public access using some of the infrastructure already built for logging, etc if not in a sensitive area and allow use\sale of the resources in a smart and safe manner and increase the royalty fees. 9 years ago from a Libertarian in Ridgefield, WA
Give it back to the people who had it first and create an enviormental constitution that protects all national forests parks monuments historical sites ect. ect. ect. logging and the destruction of our enviornment is the problem stopping it is the solution. 9 years ago from a Green in Newcastle, OK
Sell the land to private owners on the condition that they keep the Parks for their previously intended purpose as a preserved land and a tourist attraction. The new owners can hire staff to work at and maintain the Parks. Creates jobs and saves the... 9 years ago from a Democrat in Framingham, MA
Yes, but manage lands allowing controlled logging and unlimited access. 9 years ago from a Republican in Potwin, KS
Yes, that is why they are called *NATIONAL* Parks. also let each state determine which *OTHER* areas to protect, but *NOT* practice *EMINENT DOMAIN*. 9 years ago from a Republican in Orangefield, TX
Yes, but the concessionaire/vendor rights, etc. which have been bought by other countries, mainly Japan, should be bought back/controlled by the US gov't/. 9 years ago from a Green in Elmira, CA
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
Allow the Indigenous peoples in a given area decide through consensus how the land should be treated. 9 years ago from a Green in Tempe, AZ