Some people claim that too much focus and resources have been spent on protecting wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is sometimes argued that excessive attention and funding are allocated to the conservation of wild animals and birds. I completely disagree with this view, as wildlife protection is far from over-resourced and brings irreplaceable benefits to both ecosystems and human societies.
First, the current investment in wildlife conservation is still insufficient to reverse the accelerating biodiversity loss. According to the WWF, global populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians declined by an average of 69% between 1970 and 2022, driven by habitat destruction, poaching and climate change. For example, only around 600 Amur leopards remain in the wild, and many bird species such as the Spoon-billed Sandpiper are on the brink of extinction, as conservation budgets often fail to cover anti-poaching patrols, habitat restoration or captive breeding programmes. Claiming too much is spent ignores the fact that more species disappear each year due to inadequate protection.
Second, protecting wild animals and birds is not a waste of resources, but a crucial investment in human survival. Wild species maintain the balance of ecosystems: birds control agricultural pests and pollinate plants, while predators regulate prey populations to prevent ecological collapse. For instance, the conservation of vultures in South Asia, whose numbers dropped sharply due to veterinary drugs, helped stop the spread of diseases from rotting animal carcasses that had threatened public health when vulture populations were depleted. The resources put into such programmes ultimately protect human food security and health.
In conclusion, far too little rather than too much is spent on safeguarding wild animals and birds, and this investment is essential for both biodiversity and human wellbeing.