There is an ongoing debate over whether it is crucial to preserve all forms of wildlife, whereas other people argue that only certain species deserve protection. It seems to me that those who support protecting only specific animals present a valid argument; however, I firmly believe that all wild species should be preserved.
Proponents of protecting wildlife argue that they should focus on a specific type of animal based on its importance. For example, some species are a vital part of the food chain. Therefore, prioritizing the protection of certain types of wild animals is essential, as their loss could devastate our food system. In addition, preservation of all wild animals might be demanding lots of resources and efforts. Allocation of resources for entire wild animal population requests international intervention to organize groups with high level of experiences in conservation, which is challenging for smaller or less developed economies may experience negative economic consequences, particularly in the long term.
On the other hand, opponents argue that all animals deserve protection. Each species plays a crucial role in maintaining ecological stability. The disappearance of one organism can undermine the survival of others, highlighting the importance of protecting all wildlife. For instance, the decline of bees not only reduces pollination of plants but also indirectly affects herbivores and predators that depend on those plants for food. Reduction of biodiversity is another problem with protecting certain wild animals. While preserving only specific animal species to maintain the food chain, others may face extinction due to a lack of attention. This will cause a decrease in biodiversity.
In conclusion, although proponents of protecting certain species present some argue, including preserving a vital part of the food chain and resource problem, I strongly believe that it is worth protecting all kinds of animals because of ecological stability and maintaining biodiversity.