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

Many people argue that governments invest too much in protecting fauna

,

Accept space

,

while there are other significant problems to be solved. I completely disagree with

this

view because it is in fact quite the opposite and it is needed for sustainable development. Governments aren't spending much money as it is perceived by the mainstream population.

This

is because people only form an opinion based on the news media they have access to. Most claims related to government spending on are shown to gain political benefits

such

as garnering votes. In one recent study by Harvard University 90 % claims of government spending on natural reserves were found to be overstated by at least 40%.

hence

(used to introduce a logical conclusion) from that fact or reason or as a result

Hence

, most governments are actually claiming credits rather than taking action. Solving extinction of animals is more important problem than others. Since the eradication of wildlife doesn't seem to show any imminent life-threatening consequences, it is generally understood to be of lesser importance than other problems

such

as poverty or power-shortage.

However

, extinction of even a few species can create irreversible hindrance in global lifestyles.

For example

, the extinction of tigers will result in skyrocketing numbers of deers. These deers would eat an astonishing amount of plants and

hence

it would cause deforestation.

Therefore

, to prevent

this

destructive break in ecological cycle, governments paying money to save life forms in the wild should be of utmost priority. To conclude,

although

many people

argues

Suggestion

argue

that governments overspend on the projects to save animals,

this

claim is completely over exaggerated because these

government

Suggestion

governments

are proven to use government-spending on fauna as a propaganda. Even if they are sponsoring projects to save wildlife, the spend is justified due to the problem's significance.