IT IS OFTEN SAID THAT GOVERMENTS SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY ON PROJECTS TO PROTECT WILDLIFE, WHILE THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT? DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE?

It is often considered that legal authorities save

wildlife

by expending lots of money. Whereas, some believe that there are enormous issues which are more crucial.

Thus

I completely disagree with the notions which lead to a logical conclusion. Commencing, wild creatures are more essential because ,in the past, the population of animals are becoming endangered because of the exploitation of human needs.

Furthermore

, governments provide habitat to all species so they can get a healthy diet and can be looked after under surveillance.

For example

, recently in Gujarat, the Prime Minister of India inaugurated a safe

wildlife

park for leopards

although

this

species totally exit in India.

Therefore

, six leopards are brought from South Korea. Probing ahead, in the

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

globe there were multifarious problems which should be mitigated but saving the existing life of wild animals are more important because already the world had lost numerous dinosaurs.

However

, bureaucrats should invest more money in projects to save species despite resolving other issues.

For instance

, in Delhi, the government department had authorities with a specific medical team which used to look after all animals in the Zoo. In a nutshell, an aim to protect

wildlife

is important because if they get exist from the planet it will cause disturbance in nature.

Hence

, legal officers should spend money on

wildlife

to protect them from harmful effects. While

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

other problems can be resolved by different organisations.