please rate "analysis of an issue" -- national par

[gcrisis]

in order to protect national parks and historical sites, public access to them should be greatly restricted. Comment


Author makes a point about completely banning the access to national parks and historic sites in order to protect them.
Although at an ethical level I completely agree that national parks should be completely out of range, but I do not see the purpose
Of national parks to be the same as historical sites, and hence oppose the proposal that historic sites should also be shut away.

Coming first to the national parks, one needs to understand their purpose. In the today’s industrialized and urbanized world,
Man has occupied most of the planet earth, and pushed most of the animals out of their habitats. In order to ensure that
Environment is protected, the ecological balance is maintained, it is necessary that biological diversity remains. The national
Parks are the only places, where the wild animals can live and thrive in their natural habitat without any kind of artificial bounds or
fear of being hunted down by humans. Two most important things for national parks are natural habitat and absence of hunting.

Any kind of human presence is bound to affect the natural-ness of a national park. If general public can access a park, they would
Certainly treat it as their backyard, visit it and disturb the tranquility of the park, intrude into the quite of the animals, to film them and
Watch them. This can certainly affect the mating behaviors of animals. Humans being outsiders also pose a treat of exposing them
To new diseases via direct contact or the heaps of garbage they dump. Any popular national park will attract huge no of human beings, who will also bring
also commercial interests like resorts and restaurants, and make the place more and more populated. All this would bring man and
The beast in conflict, and as we all know, when ever that happens, the humans always sacrifice the innocent animals. Hence the entire purpose
Of creating a santury for animals would be lost.
Another huge danger would be illegal poaching. As the national parks are of gigantic size, it is not practical to guard them against few
Illegal poachers when scores of tourists are around.

But if we look at historic sites, then their purpose is completely different. They are their to educate us about our past, unreaval the mysteries
And show us the glory of our civilizations. They are an important part of education and ones growing up, Any visit to Rome’s aphiteater can
Inspire a human being to create such structures, and visit to pyramids tells us the might of kings that have gone. Some historic sites are important
Certers of religion, like mecca and medina and Jerusalem. They are the most important sites of the religion and visit to them is a lifetime soul liberating
Event in the lifes of the believes. In such cases, banning the access to historic sites would serve no purpose. It would desrive people of such
Devine experiences, increase the mystery and myth around such places, and certainly leave something wanting in ones education. Finally, for us,
Seeing is believing, and only when we see some of the historic sites are we able to appreaciate the past.
So, the historic sites should be made accessible but efforts should be made that they are not damanged by some careless, trouble making visitors.

To summarize, the decision regarding the access to the places should be made according to the porpuse that place serves in the society and its peoples lives.