There is a debate over whether all wild animals should be protected or only a select number needs protection. Although equally strong arguments can be seen on both sides, I personally agree with the former view and will explain why below.
On the one hand, the protection of only a few species could bring more effective approaches in terms of the allocation of resources. Conservation initiatives require financial resources which are allocated to establish wildlife sanctuaries, and scientific expertise. Since there are limited resources, it is better to protect only endangered species. Additionally, protecting all wild animals seems impractical to distribute resources to every single one so as to take equal care of. Consequently, by focusing on high-priority species, this approach becomes more effective and targeted, and in turn eases the allocation of resources.
On the other hand, in my view, protecting all wild animals is essential in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. By promoting biodiversity, we can contribute to prevent the balance of nature and the potential collapse of the entire ecosystem because every species plays a vital role not only to connect the food chain in wildlife but also maintain ecological stability. Loss of species can disrupt the balance of the ecosystem and may have an adverse effect on wildlife as well as human society.
In conclusion, I still believe that preventing all wild animals is crucial for the entire ecosystem to stabilize it, albeit it is practically impossible. However, critically endangered animals should also be protected to strike a balance between wildlife and human life.