issue83 graduate06--Hamming组 自己的冲刺issue作业第16篇

graduate06UID: 2223299

83. "Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."
政府应该保留国家领土中公共拥有的荒凉地区，即使这些地区往往人迹罕至。政府之领土

Admittedly, I agree with the statement that government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state. I consider that wilderness areas should be divided to two kinds, the first kind is valuable where some rare species live in, the other kind is nothing important species and where just is a natural areas. However, I maintain that if only one area in which some endangered animals live, it should be protected by government. If some areas are merely wilds, government should not waste of money on them.  

There is no denying the fact that government should protect the first kind of publicly owned wilderness areas in their primeval character. This kind of wildness areas is inclined to be damaged by human activity, especially if certain kinds of rare or endangered animalsin these areas. If so, no matter the areas are accessible or not the government should protect them. For instance, Tibetan antelope, a sort of endangered animals live in Tibet where few people resident there. In the sake of its expensive fur, a few people go to there for the pelt. Every year thousands Tibetan antelopes die of hunting, the cruel hunters get the fur and discard them on the field. Now Tibetan antelopes are gradually shrinking. So government needs to not only enact some laws but adopt some real actions to protect the rare animals so as to prevent them from extinction.

Furthermore, even if some areas to which people do not directly damage, government always should protect them. The reason is that people usually pollute and destruct these areas indirectly, such as, acid rain, greenhouse effect, and bird flu. Although in some cases, it seems that some animals’ extinction has no bearing with human beings, yet, in fact, human beings do indeed lead to their death. For instance, Chinese Golden monkey, is a kind of endangered animals and lives in some wilderness areas in Yunnan province of China. Due to the deteriorating environment, their main food, a special kind of usnea, is shrinking rapidly in the sake of the acid rain. Thus, the number of Golden monkey decreases rapidly. Without the help of government I am afraid future generations will not see this kind of lovely monkey.

However, in some cases, government should not pay to much attention to the second kind of wilderness areas. The second kind of areas such as desert and wild is valueless for animals and people. It is absurd to say that government should preserve all of them. On the contrary, government should change their state, turn them to be the comfort and perfect area of animals.

To preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas is the duty of our government, no matter the wilderness areas is accessible or not. However, for some of them are valueless, government should change instead of retaining their state.

graduate06UID: 2223299

自己纠正了错误
Admittedly, I agree with the statement that government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state. I consider that wilderness areas should be divided to two kinds, the first kind is valuable where some rare species live in, the other kind is nothing important species and where just is a natural areas. However, I maintain that if only one area in which some endangered animals live, it should be protected by government. If some areas are merely wilds, government should not waste of money on them.  

There is no denying the fact that government should protect the first kind of publicly owned wilderness areas in their primeval character. This kind of wildness areas is inclined to be damaged by human activity, especially if certain kinds of rare or endangered animalsin these areas. If so, no matter the areas are accessible or not the government should protect them. For instance, Tibetan antelope, a sort of endangered animals live in Tibet where few people resident there. In the sake of its expensive fur, a few people go to there for the pelt. Every year thousands Tibetan antelopes die of hunting, the cruel hunters get the fur and discard them on the field. Now Tibetan antelopes are gradually shrinking. Therefore, government needs to not only enact some laws but adopt some real actions to protect the rare animals so as to prevent them from extinction.

Furthermore, even if some areas to which people do not directly damage, government always should protect them. The reason is that people usually pollute and destruct these areas indirectly, such as, acid rain, greenhouse effect, and bird flu. Although in some cases, it seems that some animals’ extinction has no bearing with human beings, yet, in fact, human beings do indeed lead to their death. For instance, Chinese Golden monkey, is a kind of endangered animals and lives in some wilderness areas in Yunnan province of China. During the deteriorating environment, their main food, a special kind of usnea, is shrinking rapidly in the sake of the acid
rain. Thus, the number of Golden monkey decreases rapidly. Without the help of government I am afraid future generations will not see this kind of lovely monkey.

However, in some cases, government should not pay to much attention to the second kind of wilderness areas. The second kind of areas such as desert and wild is valueless for animals and people. It is absurd to say that government should preserve all of them. To the contrary, government should change their state, turn them to be the comfort and perfect areas of animals.

To preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas is the duty of our government, no matter the wilderness areas is accessible or not. However, for some of them are valueless, government should change instead of retaining their state.