Nowadays, the question regarding the protection of wildlife remains highly controversial. While some people opine that all wild animals demand protection, I would advocate that it is better to focus on those who are really in danger.
To begin with, certain organizations like Greenpeace want to protect all animals regardless of whether they are extinct or not. It is clear that members of these organizations want to prevent animals from becoming endangered. In other words, they do not wish to wait until species become extinct, therefore they demand action now. Although the idea of saving wildlife appeals to me, the price factor should also be taken into the consideration. The latest expedition in the attempt to protect pengiuns on the South Pole was estimated to cost 5 million dollars, but the price doubled in the end. Therefore, I think that it is economically ineffective to spend funds on species that do not need protection at this time.
On the other hand, the contrasting opinion states that people should focus on saving only those animals who have recently become extinct. More specifically, species like bonobo orangutans, blue whales or certain types of elephants, who are really endangered these days. From my perspective, they must be given the highest priority, and therefore all funds should be allocated to save them. It is manifest that all animals help to maintain natural balance on the planet, and therefore people should focus on saving those who demand it most. Under these circumstances, I totally support the notion that it is of utmost importance to take care of endangered wildlife.
On balance, I admit that all animals should be taken care of, however, when it comes to limited funds, it is better to prioritize those who are on the edge of becoming totally extinct. As a result, I reaffirm my advocate, that it is important to protect only a part of wild animals.
Nowadays, the question regarding the protection of wildlife remains
highly
controversial. While
some
people
opine that all wild
animals
demand protection, I would advocate that it is better to focus on those
who
are
really
in
danger
.
To
begin
with, certain organizations like Greenpeace want to protect all
animals
regardless of whether they are extinct or not. It is
clear
that members of these organizations want to
prevent
animals
from becoming endangered.
In other words
, they do not wish to wait until species become extinct,
therefore
they demand action
now
. Although the
idea
of saving wildlife appeals to me, the price factor should
also
be taken
into the consideration. The latest expedition in the attempt to protect
pengiuns
on the South Pole
was estimated
to cost 5 million dollars,
but
the price doubled in the
end
.
Therefore
, I
think
that it is
economically
ineffective to spend funds on species that do not need protection at this time.
On the other hand
, the contrasting opinion states that
people
should focus on saving
only
those
animals
who
have recently become extinct. More
specifically
, species like bonobo orangutans, blue whales or certain types of elephants,
who
are
really
endangered these days. From my perspective, they
must
be
given
the highest priority, and
therefore
all funds should
be allocated
to save them. It is manifest that all
animals
help
to maintain natural balance on the planet, and
therefore
people
should focus on saving those
who
demand it most.
Under these circumstances
, I
totally
support the notion that it is of utmost importance to take care of endangered wildlife.
On balance, I admit that all
animals
should
be taken
care of,
however
, when it
comes
to limited funds, it is better to prioritize those
who
are on the edge of becoming
totally
extinct.
As a result
, I reaffirm my advocate, that it is
important
to protect
only
a part of wild
animals
.