There is a debate over whether the preservation of wild animals should include all species or be selective. Some say it can negatively impact government finances. However, in my opinion, the duty to save all wild animals is too important to neglect.
On the one hand, some may argue that the protection of all animals can strain the government budget. They say wildlife preservation requires substantial spending on nature reserve construction, specialist training, research laboratories, technology and many other complex aspects, all of which can significantly burden taxpayers. Such massive spending might cause other essential areas – such as healthcare and education – to lack funding. From this perspective, it may seem reasonable to suggest targeting only those species that are on the verge of extinction, including but not limited to polar bears and Sumatran orangutans.
On the other hand, there is an ethical side of the debate, which binds us to take care of all animal species. As humans are at the top of the food chain and have been responsible for much of the habitat loss, I believe we owe a great deal to those that are affected by our actions. If it had not been for us, the balance in the animal kingdom and the biodiversity of species would have been maintained. Examples range from the extinction of the mammoths, which our ancestors used to hunt, to the destruction of coral reefs and rainforests. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to protect all animal species.
In conclusion, while the monetary burden of wildlife preservation may seem large, I still support the idea of taking into account the lives of all species. Not only are we the dominant species, but we have also contributed to their partial extinction, both directly or indirectly.