Read the following article "Is Conservationist Muir Still Important?" Should California wilderness take priority over urban green spaces? Give your opinion and cite information from the Muir article. Please respond to at least two other student entries.
76 Comments
Sofia
12/2/2014 06:33:25 am
The should not be able to because if a natural urban green place gets taken over what is the point of having natural places. If a place is already green and healthy, there is no need to make it a national park and give it a name. It would just be part of the wilderness where rich or not rich people can find and remember for themselves. Even though John Muir said bad things about native Americans he was still a very important man in history.
Reply
Nola
12/2/2014 06:57:12 am
I agree what's the point of having natural places if there just going to tear it all out
Reply
Sasha
12/2/2014 07:04:03 am
I do agree with you ,Sofia,because they do not need all of that space for just some national parks
Reply
Ryan
12/2/2014 07:23:46 am
I agree ith you what is the point of having natural places if you are just going to build houses over it
Reply
Mrs. Chenu
12/2/2014 03:07:09 pm
Well- what do we do if we run out of space in our cities? Over-population can be a huge problem.
charlotte
12/2/2014 08:11:06 am
I agree that there is no point to there is no point to making these urban areas places for people to pay and stare at them. Why don't they just leave them alone! Still, there is one part that I do agree with. I see the point of making sure that no one builds houses on the urban areas, but why are they making people pay to see the areas! I see some reason in making these areas places sights only because they are taking care of the plants but then again, aren't these sights already extremely healthy?
Reply
Jay
12/2/2014 09:02:44 am
I agree with charlotte because it's not fair to make people pay to see these areas. If they're just looking that should be free!
violet borsay
12/2/2014 10:27:30 am
Yes.I think wilderness should be alowed to rom around in area's where there is no wild animals , exept birds(they don't even count).Urban green places should have wilderness. Muir's saying about wilderness is still importent today. Even if he died many year's a go, he and his important quote's are still remembered today , like a new martin luther king .I wish every thing was still how it use to be befor every thing was changed by the goverment . Even though Muir did and though many bad thing's for ex. only wight rich people should be alowed to see the wilderness,But i agree with about wilderness able to rom free.
Mrs. Chenu
12/2/2014 09:32:43 am
I don't think people are making plans to destroy preserved wilderness...just make it more accessible by creating more trails and roads to these areas.
Reply
Tommy
12/2/2014 06:51:55 am
I think California should not take over priority over urban green spaces California should leave the spaces alone. Not everyone agrees with Muir but when people take over urban green spaces they are also changing the animals lives and all the animals need to go to a new environment or stay where they are and be tortured . Muir wanted to save the green urban spaces but since he said California has no space in his program California is not listening to him
Reply
Nola
12/2/2014 07:03:19 am
I agree with you Tommy, California shouldn't take priority over urban green spaces why don't they just leave the green spaces alone
Reply
juju (julian)
12/2/2014 07:22:35 am
i do agree because it wouldnt be fair for all the animals and trees when californians come chargin' in. :(
Sasha
12/2/2014 07:05:58 am
I agree with you Tommy because they should leave the urban green space alone
Reply
#!Brian!#
12/2/2014 07:38:46 am
I agree with you because one national park is ok.
Reply
Alex
12/2/2014 08:13:44 am
I fully agree with you Tommy. animal lives would grow more endangered if people decided to build urban spaces.California should pay more attentions to Muirs ideas.
Reply
Nola
12/2/2014 06:54:30 am
I think that they should not be allowed to take over the natural urban green spaces because it's still a green, bright ,healthy, wilderness. You think it would be smart to save such a beautiful and healthy area but some people just want to tear it all out and make it into some special site. Muir is so famous because of his terrific observations.
Reply
Ashley
12/2/2014 07:20:07 am
I agree with you Nola because lush green habitat need to be healthy. If there is no more healthy habitat the animals that live in the habitat might die when there is no food for them to eat. So they need healthy lush green areas to survive.
Reply
Alex
12/2/2014 08:21:24 am
I agree with you Nola. people should not taer down beautiful sights. Also a lot of animal and plant life would become endangered. But Muir also Had some bad intentions or ideas such as his disgrace to black/brown people.
Reply
Sofia
12/2/2014 08:43:03 am
I agree with you Nola, because if they take over all of the natural green places there would be no naturally wild places in the world
Reply
Sasha
12/2/2014 07:01:57 am
I do not think that the natural urban spaces in our world should be taken over by our wilderness. National parks aren't going to be import ant to us if their going to be all over our world. John Muir's plans could be life threatening especially to the natural plants and animals in our urban green wildlife. His plans effected nationalities and money issues. Going to a national park would cost some expenses and 100 years ago different nationalities than white did not have that kind of money. Even environmentalists were mostly white with a few latinos. What I am trying to say is that if we have enough national parks, why do we need more. It is threatening our wildlife.
Reply
Ashley
12/2/2014 07:09:43 am
I agree with you Sasha because if you take priority of wildlife the whole environment will have no more lush green areas.
Reply
Natasha
12/2/2014 10:03:59 am
I disagree with you, Sasha, because our wildlife we can't really visit that often, where everybody loves national parks. Lots of people want more national parks near their home since they have kids that love to play on the playgrounds and explore nature.
Reply
Gavin
12/2/2014 07:02:08 am
They should no be allowed to because if there is a beautiful area that is in use and you tear it down,all of natural urban green spaces will be destroyed and we wont have nice land.
Reply
Gavin
12/2/2014 07:08:57 am
Also,in my opinion I think that Muir's ideas are very useful to California and I do not hate Muir like the people who are saying he is saying that he is doing it for light skin people.I think Muir is famous for his beautiful ideas he makes up for California.
Reply
Jay
12/2/2014 09:07:44 am
I agree with you Gavin because I would not hate him just because he is doing it for light skin people.
Ashley
12/2/2014 07:06:25 am
I don't think California should take priority of lush green urban places because some places need to be left alone. But some people think that John Muir's speech on saving some of the lush green urban is now a good thing to take priority of lush green urban places. But I don't think we should take priority of lush green urban places just because John Muir is gone. My opinion is to leave the lush green urban places alone and let the animals enjoy the lush green habitat. I want this because some animals don't get a habitat and I want all animals to have a nice and fresh habitat.
Reply
Ryan
12/2/2014 07:26:04 am
I agree you are right some lush green urban places should be left alone but they shouldn't take all of them out. we need oxygen for us to live and it helps the environment.
Reply
Mrs. Chenu
12/2/2014 03:05:42 pm
When you write "lush green urban spaces" need to be left alone so animals can create a new habitat in them?
Reply
julian :)
12/2/2014 07:15:56 am
i think the californians should not tear it down because what if they say, "hey, since we built on yosemite, why dont we just keep on building on national parks? john muir had bad ideas anyway." when i grow up, i will think i will stand up for the parks and the wilderness. but i do agree with the text in one part. i dont think john muir should have witten books about native americans not deserving to be there.
Reply
sarah
12/2/2014 07:43:45 am
I agree,we should stand up for parks and wilderness. But, I don't agree when you said you said that Native Americans should not be on the land. They were there first and they should be able to say," no I can stay on my home land".
Reply
Ryan
12/2/2014 07:21:55 am
No, I do not think California wilderness should take priority over urban green spaces. If they did then we would not be able to enjoy the wilderness instead we would just see houses. It would also not be a smart idea because plants give us oxygen and provide many things for the earth and humans. There was a reason Muir wanted people to take care of the wilderness because it is a beautiful area to enjoy. Muir was famous for helping the wilderness and telling people not to destroy them, some people think it's a beautiful area but others want to use the area and build homes and destroy the urban green spaces.
Reply
sarah
12/2/2014 07:35:57 am
I agree when you said that plant give us oxygen. We would not be able to live without trees, plants, bees, e.t.c.
Reply
JORDEN
12/2/2014 07:21:56 am
I think there should be more protected urban green spaces because if more green spaces weren't protected more trees and more animals will become vulnerable and endangered.People say John Muirs ideas were old and weren't needed in our time anymore.He said to keep more protected land.Also other people said in the wild they need more railroads,which would put lots of animals in danger.At the end of the paragraph it said that Muir had a hatred for old white people and the native Americans,which means that he thinks they aren't welcome here or are bad by skin color.
Reply
JORDEN
12/2/2014 07:25:42 am
Sorry made a mistake he was for old white people and was trying to protect wilderness which is good but still isn't good that he has a hatred for native Americans
Reply
julian
12/2/2014 07:32:45 am
hey, jorden, do you agree with me? i think i would agree with you because i think the same way and say no and i think that muir did not have to write books about native people not deserving to be there.
Reply
#!Brian!#
12/2/2014 07:36:57 am
I don't agree with you because one national park is Ok
Reply
Arlon
12/2/2014 09:24:35 am
I agree with you Jorden because we will not only lose the forest if this continues but also our homes to because without any wood,we can not build any wooden houses and get cold and homeless because we lose our houses and our national park.
Reply
sarah
12/2/2014 07:31:32 am
I think that they should not be able to take over urban green spaces. I think that because it is a healthy and green place, and it is where many animals live. If the animals lose their homes, they have to look for new homes. It will be hard for them to find a home they're familiar to. That's how they get extinct. It is already beautiful and doesn't need to be a national park. Sometimes Muir was mean, like when he said something mean about Native Americans, he is was a good person. I think that we should still respect him even though he was mean.
Reply
julian
12/2/2014 07:35:05 am
you are 100 percent right, sarah. i TOTALY follow you.
Reply
wolf
12/2/2014 07:53:49 am
I agree with julian,I totally follow you.
Benicio Curiel
12/2/2014 08:15:35 am
I agree with you Sarah because where would the animals go, they would have to wander just trying to find shelter!
Reply
charlotte
12/2/2014 08:31:37 am
Sarah, I agree when you say that taking care of the urban spaces is important, but when it comes to them turning them into sights,where people have to pay in order to enjoy the urban spaces, I disagree. As long as the people don't destroy the places, then it's fine. I'm sure that the government could decide to make a law that the urban areas of which are protected don't have to be protected but forbid any pollution or destruction of any kind. John Muir was a great man, but this type of protection was a mistake.
Reply
Justine
12/2/2014 09:52:06 am
I agree with you,Sarah, because they are ruining many animal's homes by building national parks on their land.
Reply
#Brian#
12/2/2014 07:34:18 am
I don't think californians should't tear it just because he said "hey since we built on Yosemite, why don't we just keep building on national parks?" because one national park is ok for me. Anyway national means own by the federal government.
Reply
julian
12/2/2014 07:39:38 am
you mean me? but dont get me wrong, i do agree with you. also, i like how you used very accurate words to complete your opinion.
Reply
charlotte
12/2/2014 07:37:37 am
I understand that these people want to move on and forget about what John Muir has done, as I do too, because now that California is so populated, and most of the nature sights require money, there aren't many places that you can just go see for the fun of it. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take care of these wonderful sights, but I think that it's quite foolish to be putting prices on nature areas. And for the people who don't have enough money, all they get to do everyday is stare at the boring city.
Reply
Wolf
12/2/2014 07:50:24 am
Even if some people think they are outdated, as well as his opinion about native americans. I think that Muirs ideas could be important in certain categories of nature.
Reply
Arlon
12/2/2014 09:18:14 am
I agree with you Wolf because since people keep cutting down trees,more animals become endangered and our forest are getting smaller and if we lose our forest,we lose our homes because there are no wood.
Reply
Alex
12/2/2014 08:05:03 am
I understand that people think Muir did not have good intentions,but he did improve parks. I think that black/brown people should have been able to visit Muir's parks.He was not a good man that way. But Muir did have some good intentions. He improved these beautiful parks for the sake of wildlife and people. Overall John Muir did have good intentions and bad intentions.
Reply
Benicio Curiel
12/2/2014 08:12:39 am
I agree with you Alex because he wasn't perfect, but he did save the national parks.
Reply
Sofia
12/2/2014 08:38:13 am
I agree with you Alex because John Muir improved many national parks. He also said bad things about native Americans. He is only human so of course he can have good times and bad times
Reply
Justine
12/2/2014 09:46:12 am
I agree with you because he saved some areas in nature, but not everyone can enjoy those places.
Reply
Benicio Curiel
12/2/2014 08:09:43 am
No, California Wilderness should not take over urban green spaces because what could they build that is more important than modern wilderness. People should get the chance to see what they are taking down. The wilderness is living just like us. These areas are not man-made so it might me difficult to rebuild. All of the wilderness is useful to us. It gives us oxygen to breathe. In the text it said many people want to take away the protection of the national parks. Muir wouldn't be happy to here that the protection is being taken away. National parks are important in many ways, but most of all they are important to us.
Reply
Jay
12/2/2014 08:56:48 am
No, California Wilderness should not take over urban green spaces because they will probably go to far and kill all the animals there. They will build houses or building. People will never get to see what the world took down. Also it will be bad for the world. People need plants and trees because that produces oxygen humans need oxygen. Do not forget that National Parks are important to people so let's make that people happy!
Reply
Natasha
12/2/2014 09:57:05 am
I agree with you, Jay. I go to this hiking trail/park not far from my home, and people love going there. We also need more trees because so many are being cut down.
Reply
Aidan
12/2/2014 12:20:28 pm
Jay I agree with you because people should not take over urban green spaces
Reply
Ryan
12/2/2014 12:28:33 pm
Jay i agree with you that people need plants to survive but people also need places for homes and other things. All though it does not mean that we should destroy the urban green spaces because Muir even told people that it is beautiful and should be protected since you said that people need oxygen which comes from plants.
Reply
Arlon
12/2/2014 09:15:06 am
I think that California's wilderness should take priority to urban green spaces because in the forest,animals become more endangered because they are losing their homes because of construction of roads,hotels,motels,restaurants,and factories.That is what Muir was fighting for and why his ideas were created,to help stop many trees from being cut down.That is why I think California's wilderness should take priority in urban green spaces to stop losing thousands of trees being cut down everyday.
Reply
Justine
12/2/2014 09:40:41 am
I don't think that Californians should take priority over urban green spaces because few people will be able to enjoy it. There are a lot of people that don't have the money to see the green spaces. Only the wealthy people are able to pay to see those areas. Although John Muir did fix some green spaces, not everyone can go and enjoy it. It only made a difference for some people.
Reply
lesly
12/2/2014 11:43:00 am
Wow Justine I like your anwser because it actually explains to people.
Reply
Connie
12/2/2014 01:05:50 pm
I think you are right. Everybody should be able to visit the nature, rich or poor. John Muir's idea was only for the wealthy, white people.
Reply
Natasha
12/2/2014 09:53:02 am
Yes, and no, because we do really need more parks for children like us to play in, but we also need our natural wildlife. I don't think that we should cut down anymore trees to make roads through the mountains. I live in the mountain region near the HOLLYWOOD sign, and there are enough roads. I don't agree that people should pay to see our natural environmental features, and I also think that some of our natural wildlife can be turned into a park with out much work, because people love to go to natural parks. I also think that there should be more colored people in the foundation that Muir was president of.
Reply
Minerva
12/2/2014 10:12:31 am
I agree that we should not have to pay to see national parks because nature is something everyone should enjoy. But the parks aren't just here for us to play on, we need parks so we have green spaces in urban spaces.
Reply
Minerva
12/2/2014 10:06:42 am
I think people should not have to pay to see natural sites. I think that the government should not have the power to make people pay to see nature. The government should not own or make money off these sites. I think it is important that we have urban green spaces AND California wilderness. Nature should be everywhere. Community gardens, city parks, local plant nurseries, all these urban spaces are nature "right at our fingertips", as Waldie says. Nature is something everybody should be able to enjoy. So, I think that we should have both California wildlife AND urban green spaces, neither should take over.
Reply
Minerva
12/2/2014 10:19:20 am
John Muir did not understand that the Paiute and the Awahnee and the Miwok set up forest fires every seven years so the seed pods would pop and the seeds would distribute. The CA Indians HELPED the land and so nature sometimes needs to be touched and it can't be left untouched.
Reply
Connie
12/2/2014 12:53:18 pm
I agree with you, since the Indians used natural resources to survive. It is unfair for John Muir to do harsh things to the Native Americans. He took over their land.
Mrs. Chenu
12/2/2014 02:57:04 pm
A very thoughtful and balanced approach Minerva. I agree that nature should be accessible in urban areas as well as less accessible wilderness preserves. Do you think that CA wilderness should be easier to get to for everyone by creating more roads?
Reply
Elena
12/2/2014 10:09:04 am
The should not be able to because if a natural urban green place gets taken over what is the point of having natural places. The urban green plantations are for every one. It should be protected but not in a way of not letting people touch! This should not stop people to fight for equal rights! Muir is not respectable because that. Parks should be for anyone! Urban green places should be able to be observed and sampled for experients and we want it to be out there!
Reply
Gael
12/2/2014 10:17:17 am
I don't think California Wilderness should urban spaces they will probably kill the wildlife there and they would cut down the trees there and replace it with houses. Also people wont get to see what the area was before it got cut down.
Reply
lesly
12/2/2014 11:44:43 am
Gael, i like your anwser alot because it explains alot.
Reply
:) *!lesly:( *!
12/2/2014 11:40:54 am
What I think is that California wilderness should take priority because urban green spaces is part of the wild but now it is protected like Sequoia National park.
Reply
Aidan
12/2/2014 12:18:35 pm
I agree because I do not agree that people should make people pay to see nature and wildlife. People should let nature be also the California Wilderness might kill the trees and all the plants might die with it.
Reply
Connie
12/2/2014 12:43:01 pm
The California wilderness should not take priority over the urban green spaces, because the urban is one of the nature forms. In the text, it was written, "Nature exist in many forms."
Reply
Mrs. Chenu
12/2/2014 03:09:21 pm
True Connie- nature does exist in many forms. It can be created by man with urban green spaces or grow wild. Should one take priority over the other?
Reply
Jaya
12/2/2014 03:26:50 pm
I don't feel that California wilderness should take priority over the urban green spaces. The reason I feel that way is because I think that there should me more of a balance of buildings with open spaces. Since our population is constantly growing,it is just not realistic to preserve so much wilderness without building anything into it. We can't only have wilderness with no buildings, we should have a balanced world. The text says "Nature has many forms" we can preserve nature and yet still grow by balancing the amount of wilderness while cutting out some portions to develop urban green spaces.
Reply
Celeste
12/3/2014 12:27:23 pm
I think that having more urban green spaces (parks ect.) would be nice but not required. Places like my dad's work JPL have green space where a deer is usally found but also provide a very enjoyable place to work. What I'm getting to is that having green places scattered around is pleasent, are needed for oxogen and should be kept even though there are national parks or just, parks. I think that la sould continue to care for parks but I wonder why people have to pay to see large amounts of wildlife. Of coures Muir writes and speaks from the point of view of a rich white person because he is. Others (of course) have differant opinions because they have differant points of view, be them black, yellow, or red people rich, poor, or anything inbeetween. So in all I think that Muir's ideas are differant to all and some may agree, some may not.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHello! My name is Mrs. Chenu and I'm a 4th grade teacher at Eagle Rock Elementary Gifted and High Ability Magnet. Archives
November 2016
Categories |