Many assume that it is essential to protect all wild animels, although others others think that it is important to protect some, not all of them. From my point of view, although it is idealistic to want to save every animal, we must be realistic about our resources. However, instead of choosing individual animals, I believe the focus should be on habitat conservation.
On the one hand, there are many notable adventages and disadvantages. Nature is complex web where every species, no matter how small, plays vital role. For instance, the disappearance of single insect species could lead chain reaction, affecting birds that feed on them and the plants they pollinate. Furthermore, many argue from ethical standpoint, suggest that humans have moral responsibility preserve all forms of life that share our planet, regardless of their perceived value to us. Moreover, costs are very expensive.
On the other hand, some people argue that selective approach is more practical. Conservation efforts require massive funding, and since global budgets are limited, it makes sense prioritize species that are on the edge of extinction or those known as keystone species. These are animals that have unsuitably large effect on their environment, such as wolves or elephants. Additionally, some animals can be harmful human agriculture or safety, leading some to believe that not every creature deserves the same level of protection.
In conclusion, many assume that it is essential to protect all wild animels, although others others think that it is important to protect some, not all of them.