High national park fees: ide esai IELTS

National parks and nature reserves increasingly charge high fees and welcome thousands of visitors each year. I think the advantages of this approach outweigh the disadvantages, if visitor numbers are properly managed.

There are clear benefits. Entrance fees provide money for rangers, trail maintenance, conservation projects and research, which many parks cannot afford from government budgets alone. Tourism also supports local communities by creating jobs for guides, drivers and hotel staff, and it gives residents a reason to protect wildlife rather than hunt or clear it for farmland. In Rwanda, for instance, expensive permits to see mountain gorillas fund conservation and have helped the gorilla population to recover. Visitors who experience nature at first hand often become more concerned about the environment and more willing to support protection efforts.

However, there are genuine harms. Large numbers of tourists can trample plants, erode footpaths, disturb animals and leave rubbish, while vehicles and hotels add pollution and noise. Animals that become used to people may change their feeding and breeding habits. High fees may also exclude local families and people on low incomes, making national heritage accessible only to wealthy visitors, and communities may resent a system in which most of the income goes elsewhere.

These problems can be reduced with careful management. Parks can limit daily numbers through permits, direct visitors along designated paths, close sensitive areas during breeding seasons and require guides in fragile places. Lower fees or free days for residents would keep parks accessible, and a fair share of revenue should be returned to nearby communities.

In conclusion, high fees and tourism provide funding, jobs and support for conservation, and since the environmental damage can be controlled through limits and planning, I believe the benefits are greater.