Some people believe we should protect all wild animals. Others believe it is only important to protect some. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
The
conservation
of wild animals
is a subject of considerable debate. On one hand, some argue that all wild animals
should be protected, irrespective of their ecological significance or status. On the other hand
, there are those who believe that conservation
efforts
should be focused on select species
, particularly those that are endangered or play a critical role in their ecosystems
. This
essay will explore both viewpoints and provide a personal perspective on the matter.
Advocates for the protection
of all wild animals
emphasize the intrinsic value of biodiversity. They argue that every species
, regardless of its size, status, or ecological role, contributes to the overall
health and balance of ecosystems
. For example
, the recent efforts
to protect even the less charismatic species
, like certain beetles or small fish, are driven by the understanding that these organisms often play crucial roles in their habitats. In some cases, these species
can be indicators of environmental changes or shifts, serving as early warning systems for broader ecological impacts. Furthermore
, this
approach
is grounded in the ethical belief that every living creature has a right to exist and thrive. This
view holds that human activities have already led to the extinction of numerous species
, and it is our responsibility to prevent further
losses. The protection
of all wild animals
also
aligns with principles of ecological justice and respect for life, suggesting that the inherent value of animals
should not be diminished by human preferences or perceived usefulness.
Conversely
, proponents of focusing conservation
efforts
on specific species
argue that resources are limited and should be allocated in the most efficient way possible. They contend that prioritizing the protection
of certain species
, particularly those that are critically endangered or keystone species
, yields more significant ecological and conservation
benefits. For instance
, the conservation
of the Asian elephant not only helps preserve a species
at risk of extinction but also
benefits other species
that depend on the same habitat. Elephants play a key role in their ecosystems
by creating water holes and clearing vegetation, which in turn supports a wide array of other wildlife. Moreover
, targeted conservation
efforts
can be more practical and effective. By concentrating resources on a few high-priority species
, conservationists can implement more focused and intensive strategies, such
as habitat protection
, anti-poaching measures, and captive breeding programs. This
approach
allows for more measurable outcomes and can sometimes lead to the recovery of entire ecosystems
if the targeted species
have a significant impact on their environment.
In my view, while
the protection
of all wild animals
is a noble and ethically sound goal, a pragmatic approach
that prioritizes certain species
may be more effective in achieving tangible conservation
results. The limited resources available for conservation
should be used to make the most substantial impact, and focusing on keystone and endangered species
often provides broader ecological benefits. However
, this
does not mean that less charismatic or less prominent species
should be ignored. It is crucial to adopt a balanced strategy that combines targeted efforts
with a commitment to preserving overall
biodiversity.
The debate over whether to protect all wild animals
or to focus on select species
reflects broader questions about conservation
priorities and resource allocation. Both perspectives have valid points, with the former emphasizing the ethical and ecological importance of all species
, and the latter advocating for a strategic approach
to maximize conservation
outcomes. A nuanced conservation
strategy that integrates both approaches, ensuring that critical species
receive focused attention while
also
maintaining broader biodiversity, may offer the most effective path forward in preserving the natural world.Submitted by Nghỉ hè vui vẻ cả nhà on
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Coherence and Cohesion
Your essay could benefit from slightly clearer transitions between paragraphs. While the logical structure is strong, enhancing the flow between sections will make your arguments even more persuasive.
Task Achievement
While your response is complete, consider integrating a wider array of specific examples or case studies to further emphasize your points.
Task Achievement
The essay provides a comprehensive and nuanced exploration of both viewpoints on conservation, demonstrating a deep understanding of the topic.
Coherence and Cohesion
The introduction and conclusion are well-articulated and effectively frame the discussion, enhancing the essay's overall coherence and cohesion.
Task Achievement
Your arguments are well-supported with relevant examples, adding depth and credibility to your points.
Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Examples make your writing easier to understand by illustrating points more effectively.
Examples, if used properly, not only help you get higher marks for ‘Task Response’ but also for ‘Coherence’.
When giving examples it is best to put them after your main idea or topic sentence. They can be used in the middle of supporting sentences or they can be used to start a new sentence. There is no rule for where exactly to give examples in essays, logically they would come after your main idea/topic sentence or just after a supporting sentence.
Linking words for giving examples:
- for example
- for instance
- to illustrate this
- to give a clear example
- such as
- namely
- to illustrate
- take, for example