Many people believe that we should protect all wild animals while others believe we should just protect some of them. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

There is no doubt that a large number of creatures are critically endangered. While animal activists think that every living thing should be protected before they have vanished from the earth, others consider only harmless ones require

this

service. In my opinion, I firmly reiterate the former's view since we all are part of a food-chain. There are many people who think it is crucial to protect animals, especially, those who live in the forest and I support

this

standpoint.

In other words

,

this

ensures a stable eco-system where living things are inter-dependent.

For example

, if the grasshopper extinct from the earth,

this

will lead the death of other organisms that consume

this

such

as-frog

such

as-frog, beetles etcetera.

Therefore

, ecologists instruct mankind to preserve our nature for our own existence.

However

, opponents of the above-mentioned argument, opine that even though it is necessary to protect organisms, only selected groups are deserved

this

.

This

is because they believe that the majority of them are cruel or cause damage to human beings.

For instance

, snakes, these are deadly poisonous and kill thousands of victims globally.

Similarly

, spending a huge amount for

this

mission seems to be irrelevant, according to them, so they deny to get into the action to protect the entire animal kingdom. In conclusion, people have a different viewpoint on the protection of animals. When a group think that every wild creature must fall into

this

category, the opposite believe that selected organisms need to be assisted. I personally consider the former is right as every life is counted.