issue83 寄托4人组 8.27

meautoUID: 2116250

Issue83 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.

Should government protect publicly owned wildness areas, even though these places are often remote and inaccessible to people? I believe so. While many publicly owned wilderness areas are the only habitats for some species on this planet, they are generally vulnerable to natural disasters and human damage. To protect areas covering such large pieces of land, government should bear the reasonability for protecting wilderness areas.

To begin with, many precious species can now only be found in wilderness places, which are of significant value for the scientific research. Common sense tells us that plants and many other animals usually obtain a different set of genes from that of ours. And many rare genes and chemical components can be found nowhere than species living in remote wilderness areas. Study of these species has greatly reinforced our understanding of human gene groups. By comparisons and analysis, biologists find out the defected genes which lead to serious diseases, making it possible to cure some hard illnesses.  But studying rare animals and plants offer us something more around the corner. By researching the evolution of certain species and historical records, we know more about the earth we are living, its history long inviting our curiosity. To be sure, without the precious species living in remote wilderness places, we are sure to lose the worthless research material in biology as well as history.

Despite the merit of wilderness areas, they are unfortunately vulnerable to natural disasters and though a few human activities. In fact, more often than not, many species inhabiting in wilderness often become extinct due to over hunting. In the 1970’s, for example, Northeastern Tigers abounded in the forest of north China. During the next decade, however, the population of them decreased sharply for the illegal hunting. Astoundingly, although only a few hunters were actually responsible for the misdeeds, the damage caused by them was enormous: today, the total number of Northeastern Tigers is no more than 6,100. Another example is the Giant Panda. If not for the government protection, this valuable animal, labeled as “living dinosaur", would have died out for the lack of their sole food, resulting from an environment change. Without regard to any preservation measures, in short, the existences of species living in wilderness places are under threats.

Given the fragile condition of the wilderness places, government should take the responsibility to preserve these lands. For one thing, wilderness areas are often publicly owned, irrelevant to any private profits. Thus there would not be many people who care about the protection. Admittedly, we could look to environments volunteers for help. But is that enough? Given that some eager individuals and organizations are far from competent to protect such large pieces of remote land, government should channel into the protection program with more financial supports for equipment, more experts offering knowledge and experience, and if needed, more complete laws inhibiting illegal human activities. In sum, it is government who can afford the monetary and human resources necessary for a successful protection.

In conclusion, publicly owned wilderness areas deserve the efforts coming from government, since there we find many biological and history materials, that is, precious animals and plants, and that they are easily damaged by natural disasters and human activities.

嘶喊的牧歌UID: 197463

do u make it in a limited time?

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

立正！

meautoUID: 2116250

Originally posted by 嘶喊的牧歌 at 2005-8-27 19:11
do u make it in a limited time?

Edited edition.

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

Issue83 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should government protect publicly owned wildness areas, even though these places are often remote and inaccessible to people? I believe so. While(似乎可以不用) many publicly owned wilderness areas are the only habitats for some species on this planet, they are generally vulnerable to natural disasters and human damage. To protect areas covering such large pieces of land, government should bear the reasonability for protecting wilderness areas.

To begin with, many precious species can now only be found in wilderness places, which are of significant value for the scientific research. Common sense tells us that plants and many other animals usually obtain a different set of genes from that of ours. And many rare genes and chemical components can be found nowhere than(换成but?) species living in remote wilderness areas. Study of these species has greatly reinforced our understanding of human gene groups. By comparisons and analysis, biologists find out the defected genes which lead to serious diseases, making it possible to cure some hard illnesses.  But studying rare animals and plants offer us something more around the corner(用在这里什么意思?). By researching the evolution of certain species and historical records, we know more about the earth we are living, its history long inviting our curiosity. To be sure, without the precious species living in remote wilderness places, we are sure to lose the worthless research material in biology as well as history.
(把它们关进动物园或者做成标本，不也可以弄到它们的DNA？)
Despite the merit of wilderness areas, they are unfortunately vulnerable to natural disasters and though? a few human activities. In fact, more often than not, many species inhabiting in wilderness often become extinct due to over hunting. In the 1970’s, for example, Northeastern Tigers abounded in the forest of north China. During the next(following?) decade, however, the population of them decreased sharply for the illegal hunting. Astoundingly, although only a few hunters were actually responsible for the misdeeds, the damage caused by them was enormous: today, the total number of Northeastern Tigers is no more than 6,100. Another example is the Giant Panda. If not for the government protection, this valuable animal, labeled as “living dinosaur", would have died out for the lack of their sole food, resulting from an environment change. Without regard to any preservation measures, in short, the existences of species living in wilderness places are under threats.如果把政府的责任再强调一下就更好了！
(这段例子不错哦！收下了！)
Given the fragile condition of the wilderness places, government should take the responsibility to preserve these lands. For one thing, wilderness areas are often publicly owned, irrelevant to any private profits. Thus there would not be many people who care about the protection. Admittedly, we could look to environments(词性) volunteers for help. But is that enough? Given that(用在这里MS不当) some eager(enthusiastic?) individuals and organizations are far from competent to protect such large pieces of remote land, government should channel into the protection program with more financial supports for equipment, more experts offering knowledge and experience, and if needed, more complete laws inhibiting illegal human activities. In sum, it is government who can afford the monetary (等于money) and human resources necessary for a successful protection.

In conclusion, publicly owned wilderness areas deserve the(删) efforts coming from government, since there we find many biological and history materials, that is, precious animals and plants, and that they are easily damaged by natural disasters and human activities.

(中规中矩！嗯嗯！)