It is widely felt that saving endangered animal species, like the tigers and the blue whales, is a waste of money. Although there might be some disagreements with this statement, I agree with it as such an action can result in economic disadvantages.
To begin with, opponents of that statement might point out that saving endangered animals can be financially beneficial. Most of these people may argue that protecting these animals in preservation areas can bring profit. The reason is that preserving them in those areas can help gain more tourist attraction, thereby leading to more money gain. However, a great number of endangered animals are incapable of living in kept environments such as preservation places, so they might be unable to sustain their lives. This inability can result in extinction for them in the long term, resulting in less tourist attraction and therefore less profit gain.
In contrast, I agree with the fact that saving endangered animal species is a waste of resources due to having economic drawbacks, particularly finance loss. This is because the lives of these animal species have been heavily threatened, which may demand a huge amount of money to save them. In fact, a great deal of money was allocated to saving many nearly extinct marine and wildlife species. For example, a large amount of money has been used to cure diseases of the blue whales and the tigers in order not to make them suffer from extinction.
In conclusion, despite the disagreements with the opinion that it is a waste of money for attempting to save endangered animal species, I agree with this point of view because of the economic drawbacks resulting from saving such species.