Many believe that it is important to protect all wild animals, while others think that it is important to protect some, not all of them. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Wild animal protection has become a core global environmental concern, with divided opinions on whether all wild species deserve conservation efforts.
Those supporting universal protection argue that every wild animal plays an irreplaceable role in maintaining ecosystem balance. Even seemingly insignificant species, such as small pollinating insects, underpin the survival of entire food webs: the decline of wild bees in many regions has already reduced crop pollination rates and threatened agricultural output. Moreover, all wild species carry unique genetic value, which may hold keys to future medical or technological breakthroughs, making the loss of any species an irreversible cost to human society.
However, others believe that prioritization is essential given limited conservation resources. Many governments and environmental organizations operate on tight budgets, so diverting funds and manpower to abundant, non-endangered species (such as common wild pigeons or rats in some regions) would leave critically endangered species, like the Yangtze finless porpoise, without sufficient support for survival. Critics of universal protection also note that overprotecting species that breed excessively can disrupt local ecological balance, such as overpopulated wild kangaroos in Australia damaging grasslands and crowding out other native species.
In my opinion, a balanced, tiered protection approach is the most practical. While all wild species have inherent ecological value, resources should first be allocated to threatened species with the most critical ecosystem roles. For non-endangered species, we only need to regulate human activities to prevent them from being harmed unnecessarily, rather than investing excessively in targeted conservation, to maximize the long-term benefits of global wildlife protection.