There is a debate over whether all wild animals or just endangered species should be preserved. In this essay, both views will be discussed before concluding with my own viewpoint that protecting all wildlife is essential.
The proponents of the notion that mere the significant creatures must be defended put forward several compelling arguments. One significant reason is that some non-domestic animals can ensure both environmental and economical benefits, directly supporting tourism or agriculture. For instance, some rare predators might attract tourists, especially animal lovers to the country, which illustrates how protecting them is provided. Furthermore, it is argued that the restricted budget is allocated by government for pretending the extinction of wildlife, thereby reinforcing the idea that efforts for preserving should focus on ecologically vital species. To exemplify, as some endangered and keystone animals need more conservation, a separated budget must be prioritized to safeguard their habitats and populations.
On the other hand, the animal rights protectors maintain a divergent stance, arguing that every species deserve equal protection. To clarify, all undomesticated animals contribute to the ecosystem, keep the balance in nature, as such, we preserve biodiversity by protecting all wildlife. A case in point is that the predators kill and eat prey constituting the food chain, thus they pretend overpopulation. Additionally, all wild creatures are useful for the scientific research. It is believed that even less popular species might provide initiatives to the education, medicine, or genetics.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding animal protection is multifaceted, involving strong opinions from both advocates. Although both views have valid arguments, after weighing the evidence, I am more inclined to support those who state that all wild animals should be conserved by government, and we cannot determine the importance level of the creatures.