Wild animals are an essential part of an ecosystems. Therefore, many are of the opinion that wildlife should be conserved. Contradictory, others reckon that only part of them need to be protected. This essay aims to hash out both the rational ideas before coming to my opinion.
Advocates of the former view that wild animals maintain the ecological balance of the planet because wildlife help maintain the variety of species and ecosystems in an area. For instance, pollinators like bees and butterflies help plants grow and reproduce, which forms the basis of the food chain. They also emphasize that conserving wildlife ensures the future generations can enjoy the natural world. To vindicate, Ecotourism aims to minimise the impact of visitors on the local environment and ensure that wildlife remains intact for future.
However, the latter view point is backed up by those whose opine that a biological species that has a high indicator value for a group of sites, which represents an environmental condition of interest. Indicator species are also biological indicators of habitat types to be preserved. It is further given support by arguing that biodiversity, contributes to ecosystem resilience and helps ecosystems with stand environmental changes. To elaborate, biologically diverse communities are more likely to contain species that can adapt to a changing environment.
Personally, by going underneath the surface of matter, I ultimately believe that the protection of few animals leads to decrease in expenditure, yet all species need to be protected because all wild animals are part of biodiversity.