What proportion of say, Utah or Arizona, would you propose to allocate to wilderness? Or even to federal ownership for any purpose?
As much as possible. But unlike some others, I don't think the gov has the right to just "take" land from private citizens. (either outright or by NEW restriction) So the limit as always is money. The same should also be true of land the gov already owns. If it is extraordinarily valuable, than the gov might want to sell it, and do something else with the money.
With Alaska the question is the degree to which land with ~10 billion dollars worth of oil under it should be protected. Maybe that money could be better spent elsewhere, say on buying back private land.
I do in away agree with your original point- that extinction is overrated. The endangered species act often results in bizarre policies. Protecting the bald eagle or grizzly bear is one thing, but a fish with an extra spot on its fin just isn't as important, and the law should reflect that. Furthermore the law often confiscates land without compensation. If people in NY want to protect the spotted owl, they can pay up.
I think the gov should rather focus its effort on creating large swaths of protected habitat. That is the kind of place that I would like to visit from time to time, and many others feel the same way. If someone doesn't believe this is public sentiment, just look at how much money people spend on visiting zoos each year, or the ratings of the Discovery channel. Wildlife in habitat has value, and if the economy isn't reflecting that right now, the gov should have a role. |
