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

There has been controversy about whether the government should spend too much money to intervene in the

wildlife

project. Personally, I disagree with

this

statement based on several reasons.

First

, there have been significant provide that the extinction rate is decreased among the endangered

species

,

second

, in some countries,

wildlife

is a part of their identity, and

this

attracts many tourists and represents a great source of income.

Initially

, government involvement significantly decreases the extinction rate among the endangered

species

. Establishing the natural conservation area in the reserved area, providing peaceful habitats for the animals' growth without disturbing and isolating from human activities.

For instance

, Hunter might kill the

species

aiming for their leather and furs for selling purposes. Meanwhile, authorities are able to monitor, legislate, and implement strict penalties for the hunters and locals who murder the creatures, which is significantly deterred to kill the

wildlife

.

Moreover

, for many countries

wildlife

is a part of their identity and culture.

Such

as, Africa is well-known for its spectacular views.

This

significance is a destination for adventure lovers. According to recent studies, the Great barrier Reef in Australia,

for example

, has been making substantial revenue from

wildlife

tourism in past ten years.

Therefore

, investing in

wildlife

preservation has been beneficial for the country’s economic growth as well as for preserving a vital part of its culture and image. In Conclusion, the government spending the money the

wildlife

protection is required and justified. Due to the conservation of nature and strict punishment of hunters, many

species

were saved and are no longer threatened by extinction because of human activities.