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.

Some individuals have suggested that

wildlife

conservation programs should only be targeted selectively to the endangered species rather than concentrating on protecting all

wildlife

, while others have argued that all wild beasts should be protected.

This

essay agrees with the former view, that effort should be concentrated toward the protection of the ones that are under the threat of extinction. The essay will discuss both opinions. On the one hand, human

activities

; one of the major causes of

wildlife

habitat destruction are not selective.

That is

, these

activities

such

as bush clearing or burning, industrial waste generation through the burning of fossil fuels, and a lot of others, affect generally all organisms, the only reason some species are not yet being threatened is the adaptive features that make them survive these adverse environmental changes resulting from the

activities

of man.

Therefore

, government protective measures should rather be preventive; discouraging

such

environmentally harmful human

activities

, rather than isolating and conserving only endangered species.

For example

, placing emphasis only on the selective few on the verge of extinction; means that no plan is on the ground for other organisms, provided they

also

become endangered. That being said, the other proponents who believe that emphasis should be on the threatened wild

animals

also

have a valid point. Protecting all

wildlife

may be unrealistic, and

therefore

less pragmatic.

this

is because some of the causes of environmental degradation are unavoidable natural or human-related events that cannot be controlled.

As a result

, concentrating effort toward safeguarding all wild

animals

may be an extremely difficult project to embark upon.

For instance

, the increasing drought in some arid areas due to the effect of increasing global temperature, and less precipitation is a major environmental problem

that is

difficult to prevent and can affect all

animals

living in the bush.

Thus

, it is just worthwhile to protect only the threatened ones. In conclusion, though preventing human-related

activities

that can have devastating effect effects on environmental health is a good measure, it may not save all wild

animals

; rather isolating and preservation of endangered organisms appear to be a more pragmatic endeavour. I strongly believe that

this

will achieve a more productive effect in the long run.