Many believe that it is important to protect all wild animals,
while others think that it is important to protect some, not all of them.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Protect
all? Why
- Every
animal is an integral part of ecological balance and thus humans must put
efforts to protect all of them, it is their ethical
responsibility
- **Absence
of some animals may result in increase in the risk of disease and other
problems
Protect only some, why?
- Many
animals and birds have been able to adapt to the transforming environment
for instance those surviving in urban environments and villages
- Some
animals are in fact considered as pests and saving them could mean
affecting society adversely
- Many
animals that are rare and exotic are nearing extinction and without
human intervention they may completely disappear
- **Many animals have been
affected due to the human activities, and their disappearance could mean a
disaster to nature and let loose several problems
When it comes to
protecting wild fauna, many have a suggestion that efforts should be made
to protect all the species. However, there is dissent on this issue as some
feel that conservation programmes should include only certain types.
Nevertheless, the other section proposes focusing on conservation of only a selected species, for this section feels that it will amount to squandering of invaluable resources on preserving those, which have learned to adapt to the transforming surroundings such as monkeys, rodents and pigeons, to name a few. These creatures are found in abundant numbers in wild, rural and urban locales. The need of the hour is to safeguard the exotic wild beings that are nearing extinction and may die out without timely human intervention.
Overall, despite both the views being true in their own virtue, I feel the latter view holds substance. Priority should be given to those beings that are on the brink of disappearing.