yes, but there is some debate about whether is should not be a world park because it have very mineral rich soil underneath, which we now have the technology to get. This however, would make it a waste tip, so at the moment it's staying as a world park.
All land on planet earth south of 60 degrees S is governed by the Antarctic Treaty, which dedicates these lands to science.
There is no need to add the burden of 'world park' to these pristine scientific resources.
My opinion is no. Animals should be able to move around freely, without human interference. It is also dangerous for tourists to travel here because of the coldness and the seas.
so you can experience the unique, lovely ,cold environment.
yes , because it is certainly better . people get injured if they pick up resources.
It is still not considered as a world park.
No. Antarctica is governed by the Antarctic Treaty, which also governs planet earth south of 60 degrees South Latitude.
If Antarctica were a world park, It would be protected from HUMAN INTERFERENCE.
basically 50 cent said no.
Antarctica, ok make it into a world wilderness park. Nobody cares.
nothing
Antarctica is already protected -- all land south of 60 degrees S -- by the Antarctic Treaty. There is no reason to add the burden of a world park designation to this geography.
Yellowstone National Park became a world heritage site on September 8, 1978.
Sagarmatha National Park was declared a World Heritage Site in 1979.
no.
Antarctica is not a world park. All land and ice south of 60 degrees S is governed by the Antarctic Treaty (1961), which preserves the geography for the scientific study of the health of planet Earth.
Yes, the Kaymay Bay National Park should be a world heritage site.
Antarctica is the largest and coldest desert.
Grand Canyon National Park became a World Heritage Site in 1979.