As most of the opinions above are addressed to the number of people, I agree that this is the most important and harmful threat currently to BTNR. And yet although it is very feasible to close off the reserve this has not been done and why? Are the public not mature enough to understand that for the sake of the forest, to allow it to regenerate without harmful human interference such steps must be taken? Do we label it a nature reserve for the acknowledgement and attract "nature lovers" who can't stand their city life to immerse themselves into the "wild"?
I feel that there should be a common consensus and goal to which we work towards. Do we preserve for human benefits or for the right of the primary forest to retain its integrity? Sadly it seems that it is indeed the lack of knowledge and understanding of the public that leads us to feel that if such measures are taken, we'll face the warth of the "complain city". This is where education comes in. We don't need to teach them in the reserve the importance of staying out. In fact we can't do that.
In other countries, Nature reserves hold an idea of wilderness protected from human interference, out of bounds to humans, a daily quota set and often a entry fee that is meant to discourage users. Reserves are not parks and should not hold the same branding. I believe that even the zoo is visited by locals less that BTNR. The forest needs recuperation in order to fully regain its primary forest glory. What we see is a pale shadow of scattered trees and canopy gaps. Young seedlings trampled, fauna driving to near extinction.