It is argued that only a few wild animals should be protected, while others believe that they all should be treated in the same way. I believe that more focus should be on endangered species.
One argument in favor of protecting all wild animals is that all animals play an important role in maintaining ecological balance. This is largely because the entire ecosystem and all species are linked as a chain, as they serve as a source of food. As a result, without one specific animal type, this would immensely affect to the other species. For example, predators, regulate the population of other species, by preventing environmental imbalance. Consequently, supporters argue that all species are necessary for ecosystem.
Those who hold protecting only endangered species, argue that more financial resources should be allocated to save them. Their position based on the belief that preventing extinction of wild animals, by organizing special conservation and offering more breeding programs. For instance, it is true that pandas are becoming extinct and considered as an endangered for more than 50 years, and thankfully preserved by potential organizations and zoos, where they kept. Therefore, advocates maintain that prioritizing animals that are at risk of extinction may be a more practical approach.
While both perspectives raise valid concerns, i believe that endangered animals preservation is ultimately more convincing. This is because protecting biodiversity is essential for ecosystem stability. Unlike the opposing view, animals at risk of extinction have scientific and medical value, which is essential to maintain eco-balance.