Natural parks

[sylvain52]

Hello,

I am currently working on a subject concerning natural parks and in particular the opinions of ecologists on them.
I would like to have your opinions on natural parks: is this a scam or essential to preserve nature ...
Do you think they generate more constraints or advantages?
Do you respect the rules they entail?

thank you in advance hoping to have many opinions.

[Christophe]

What do you mean by natural parks?

Because to talk about scam you have to talk about money ... or natural parks (according to my definition) are (still ...) free access spaces right?

[sylvain52]

What I mean by natural parks are national and regional natural parks.

When the scam, it can be developments that have cost dearly but which ultimately serve no purpose, spaces that can not be visited, or else too many rules to follow that do not have much utility...
Indeed some are not open to public access ...

[Christophe]

Ok we have the same definition then

On the other hand I do not think that this is a scam, when we see how public money is sometimes used, we can well tolerate certain abuse in the development of national parks, right? (I'm not at all aware of these cases actually ...)

After all, how much can we estimate the diversity of species or the survival of a species? Obviously such reasoning guys from Bercy they can't have it ....

[Exceed]

Hello,
I live in the Livradois-Forez regional natural park ... all I can say is when as long as people live, we have very little information .... well, much less than the tourists ! In addition, the population of the park is generally never consulted by decision-makers, as in other areas for that matter !!! Money, which is invested, is very often a good idea at the start but which, in the long run, is sometimes catastrophic .... Ex: House of Utopia ...
Or Vulcania in the Parc des Dômes ....
It's always the same, the main parties concerned are not consulted then .... Well, everything is not negative .... fortunately but still a lot of waste and dispersions.
Here is my opinion ... good idea for the park, the result is a scam .... too often !!!
A + Serge.

[Christine]

When the scam, it can be developments that have cost dearly but which ultimately serve no purpose, spaces that can not be visited, or else too many rules to follow that do not have much utility...
Indeed some are not open to public access ...

Finally, a natural park is above all a "preserved" area for fauna and flora. Its raison d'être is not tourism. So it does not shock me that some are not open to visitors. The key is to find other sources of funding.

[Rabbit]

I am for provided they remain so.
These are indeed great reserves, as much for wildlife
only for flora. For a park to really have a meaning, it must have at least a hundred hectares, some animal species
you need a lot of space to develop. I think
especially in the Gatineau park in the region of
l Outaouais, PQ Canada. It is open to visitors, but they must
respect animals and plants. no question of picking
wild garlic or any other plant. I live close by and we
there are frequent skunks, porcupines, bears, moose and beavers.
Sometimes even wild turkeys when the previous winter was
clement.
I would say that these parks are essential because a lot of species find refuge there.
remember that there is more than just wildlife
not only rats, mice, small birds and evolving animals
exclusively for documentaries.

[Other]

Hello,
I am for the maintenance and presevations of natural parks
There are several just around my house, the Sorels islands on the St Laurent are protected it is at this place that we find one of the largest gathering of herons which come to nest on an islands, the peculiarity of the climate makes that in spring this islands is completely flooded therefore washed of the extrements of these birds, without what everywhere or there is a high concentration of herons all the vegetation is destroyed by the excrement of these birds.
A few km further there is another protected area for the migration of white geese, barnacles, ducks, they come by the thousands in the spring and make a stop to climb further north.
When these controls did not exist, some hunters fired up to 100 ducks, not counting all those who were not injured and were not recovered.

There are also protected parks where moose and bears are controlled. Fishing is limited, hunting and selective and determined according to the livestock.

I think that these protected areas are a necessity if we want to conserve our nature and our wild animals.

Andre

[Targol]

Hello,

I deliver this thought to your great wisdom to all: what if natural parks were an implicit authorization to industrialists and other polluters to do anything with dehors of these ?

What if, instead of natural parks, common sense rules were applied in terms of natural impact?

What do you think ?

[Christophe]

Hello,

I deliver this thought to your great wisdom to all: what if natural parks were an implicit authorization to industrialists and other polluters to do anything with dehors of these ?

What if, instead of natural parks, common sense rules were applied in terms of natural impact?

What do you think ?

Very good question, I had never seen the thing like this ... but we must not exaggerate on "anything" because manufacturers are currently still subject to "fairly strict" standards (generally by them selves... ).

And I think that in our countries, the worst has already been done in terms of industrial pollution (including agriculture) ...

Now it always makes me laugh to see the flares and their black smoke from refineries (often near cities) when we impose particle filters (without entering into the debate of their effectiveness) to individuals. Did you say scam?