There is a debate over that all species of wildlife need conservation with some people thinking its vital for our natural environment, with others arguing it is more essential to protect animals that under threat. I strongly agree with the latter view.
For some individuals with stronger connection to nature or who grow up in a natural zones it is inherit view to think that all species of wild animals should be protected from damages. That is right. If people focused not only specified animals and try to observe and conserve them, specialists may found new types of mutations and open other types that not been founded earlier. It will be important scientific finding that will shocked the world. Also, when all of animals in jungles and saunas would be conserved, people have a chance to handle with the extinction and keep the nature alive, allowing both sustainable future. It is another positive impact of protecting wilderness.
However, despite these positives, I strongly argue in favor due to limited finance of any country for this. In my opinion, not all species of animals survive in wild environment and government do not have sufficient money to save all of them. Allocating money for expedition, experts, scientists and volunteers, specialized equipment may weaken another sides of country, which is leads to negative consequences. It is also clear that such processes requires a lot of time and power which not all people may handle. They a have a family, friends and personal life, which can blurred in wild areas, where they need to live many years to observe and protect animals.
In conclusion, for many it is vital process to protect all wild animals because it gives benefits such as scientific findings and sustainable future of nature. But, in my view, these benefits outweigh the drawbacks which include limited financial background and breaking personal life of scientists in natural zones.