It is often said that governments too much money on projects to protect wildlife, while there are other problems that are important? Do you agree or disagree?

It has been argued that wildlife projects are expensive and consume too much amount of a country's GDP, resulting in the less funding for some important projects like health and education. In my opinion, I agree with

this

as the basic necessities of life, like provision of medicine and schooling, must take priority. Animal care and protection is necessary but not at the cost of welfare schemes for the local population.

Although

, it's the duty of government to look after wild beasts and prevent them from extinction, but in doing so a huge amount of revenue is being consumed.

This

, in turn, will increase the burden on the treasury of a country and there will be a decline in the spending of budget on other sectors of importance. So, there will be a direct effect of

this

on the living conditions of human beings.

For instance

, the same issue has already been highlighted in the United Nations general assembly session of 2009. The prime responsibility of a ruler is to uplift the living standards of fellow countrymen by providing them with the best available basic needs of life specially hospital facilities and educational institutions.

Firstly

, finance department must rationalise the distribution of resources on the basis of requirement.

Secondly

, humans must have an advantage over the animals.

Moreover

, it must be kept in mind that money consumed for the betterment of locals will be paid back in terms of prosperity.

For example

, all the developed nations

have realised

Suggestion

has realised

this

fact and have fixed a specific portion for the upkeep of cattle. To conclude, I think that requirements of individuals must take the priority over animals and head of states must keep

this

in mind before allotment of funds.