-
themaharaja1
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:23 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
“Some people claim that in order to protect national parks and historical sites, public access to them should be greatly restricted. Others argue that there should be few restrictions, if any, because such places were intended for everyone to use.”
Explain your position on this issue. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Maintaining national prides such as national parks and historical sites is very difficult task. Above statement puts forward two completely different strategies to serve the cause of protecting national parks and historical sites. I would like to say the option of fewer restrictions seems to be far better than the strategy of limited access. Reasons supporting my statement are as follows.
First of all, most of the times such sites are not free to view and generally people are required to pay certain fees for the entry. If access is not restricted then more people will visit and more revenue can be generated. This revenue can be used to maintain that national park or site. For example in India if you want to visit the Taj Mahal then you have to pay some fix fee. That fee is used for cleaning premises of Taj Mahal, maintaining it, paying salaries of staff and also for maintaining security to protect Taj Mahal from terrorist activities. If there is limited access then government has to pay from it's pocket to maintain these types of important sites. This is an added burden to nation's economy.
Moreover, as more and more people visit such national parks and historical sites, we will need extra manpower to manage and secure these sites. This will also stimulate economy of the nation as more jobs will get created and money will flow in the market.
Along with above points I also think that there is no use of such places if we don't provide their access to our citizens. These places are national heritage and we should allow common men to enjoy their beauty. Our children should see such places and feel proud about them. Restricted access is something similar to a show piece. Such show piece definitely catches attention of people but it is of no use as it cannot be enjoyed or used by people. For example there is no point in purchasing a costly sports car if we are not going drive and just going to keep the car in the garage all the times as we fear that because of the use car will get damaged or it will loose its charm.
Therefore, I think that we shouldn't limit access of such sites. If we want to protect national sites then what we need more is a better education among citizens of the country. We need to spread awareness among citizens of a country through proper education and by using electronic media such as television, radio and internet. Only when citizens understand the importance and cultural significance of such sites they will stop damaging the beauty of national parks and historical sites though direct or indirect means.
Explain your position on this issue. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
Maintaining national prides such as national parks and historical sites is very difficult task. Above statement puts forward two completely different strategies to serve the cause of protecting national parks and historical sites. I would like to say the option of fewer restrictions seems to be far better than the strategy of limited access. Reasons supporting my statement are as follows.
First of all, most of the times such sites are not free to view and generally people are required to pay certain fees for the entry. If access is not restricted then more people will visit and more revenue can be generated. This revenue can be used to maintain that national park or site. For example in India if you want to visit the Taj Mahal then you have to pay some fix fee. That fee is used for cleaning premises of Taj Mahal, maintaining it, paying salaries of staff and also for maintaining security to protect Taj Mahal from terrorist activities. If there is limited access then government has to pay from it's pocket to maintain these types of important sites. This is an added burden to nation's economy.
Moreover, as more and more people visit such national parks and historical sites, we will need extra manpower to manage and secure these sites. This will also stimulate economy of the nation as more jobs will get created and money will flow in the market.
Along with above points I also think that there is no use of such places if we don't provide their access to our citizens. These places are national heritage and we should allow common men to enjoy their beauty. Our children should see such places and feel proud about them. Restricted access is something similar to a show piece. Such show piece definitely catches attention of people but it is of no use as it cannot be enjoyed or used by people. For example there is no point in purchasing a costly sports car if we are not going drive and just going to keep the car in the garage all the times as we fear that because of the use car will get damaged or it will loose its charm.
Therefore, I think that we shouldn't limit access of such sites. If we want to protect national sites then what we need more is a better education among citizens of the country. We need to spread awareness among citizens of a country through proper education and by using electronic media such as television, radio and internet. Only when citizens understand the importance and cultural significance of such sites they will stop damaging the beauty of national parks and historical sites though direct or indirect means.
