Some people say that too much time and resources are spent on the protection of wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree and disagree.

Whether the

safeguard

Replace the word

safeguarding

show examples

of wild animals and birds costs a fortune sparks controversy among the public. I strongly disagree with

this

statement from my perspective.

To begin

with, it is generally believed that too much time spent has yet to live up to the expectation.

Initially

, it is true that the policies enacted these days have not completely tackled the conundrum yet.

For example

, some individuals still live off hunting elephants for ivory,

however

, the punishment for

this

is just fine.

This

would enable hunters to look down on the rules

while

hunting can bring huge benefits exceeding the punished sum.

Additionally

, less awareness among the community is another factor behind

this

.

For instance

, governments encourage

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

citizens to save the birds

whereas

selling for consumption or leisure has spread over social media and the market.

Therefore

, the authorities had better spend much more time coming up with superior policies so as to deal with that dilemma.

Furthermore

, there is a widely held view among people that the government has been splurging their budget, yet the results backfire.

According to

the forecast, there will be no place for birds or wildlife in the 21st century

due to

human beings' destruction and changing weather.

Thus

, the council is thought to allocate more resources to thwart

this

issue. Take the construction of zoos as a good example of that. By doing so, spare fowl or endangered animals will be able to shelter. In conclusion, some adopt a view that the government is squandering time and resources to shield

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

precious animals from menaces

while

I absolutely disagree. I believe that they should act more than that to hinder

such

an increasing disappearance.