Some people are of the opinion that we should protect some wild animals, while others believe that

we should
protect all wild animals. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
---------------------A key feature of many natural systems is the abundance of both flora and fauna. Yet specifically in regards to wild
animals, many species have been completely eradicated over the years, due to a number of factors both
anthropogenic and natural. Certain groups of people advocate for the protection of all wild animals alike, whilst
others prefer to selectively decide on which species to save, and which not to. I personally advocate for the latter
opinion, and through this essay will explain why that is the case.
To begin with, proponents of the 'save-everything' camp claims that all animals have equal rights to live and thrive
on Earth, hence each and every wild animal regardless are worthy of humanity's protection. The argument placed
forth specifically quotes the idea that every species would fill an environmental niche, and therefore their
disappearance would upset the 'balance of nature'. Given such consequences, even animals such as mosquitoes or
rats are worth saving, despite their common status as pests and disease vectors.
However, on the other hand opponents are convinced that only certain wild animals should be protected. The idea
that every last species is important to maintain a natural state of wild habitats have recently lost much ground, when
the newest studies have shown that not all species are important for the continuation of a habitat. Many organisms
play irreplaceable roles, an example being bees as the major pollinators of plants. Without bees, it has been
projected that flowering plants would go extinct within a decade or so, including many of humanitys crop plants.
Then there are ants, which serve to aid in the decomposition of detritus, and hence renewing nutrients for the sake
of usage by other organisms. On the flip side, certain creatures such as koalas do not actually contribute much to the
environment, and therefore even if they were to permanently disappear, would not cause a major ripple effect to
occur. Therefore, it is clear that if we only consider the importance of animals to either us or natural systems in
general, not all wild animals would be essential.
Of greater consideration is probably the fact that regardless of beliefs, it is implausible to protect all wild animals,
given the costs associated. Many wild animals inhabit distant lands, and are of such low numbers that they are
always facing extinction, therefore to save them would require complex and dedicated plans to be enacted. Another
consideration is the fact that some wild animals are definitely destroying the environment, and needs to be
eradicated. Crown-of-thorn starfish for example, are wiping out large swaths of coral reefs at a time in Australia. This
leads to the loss of habitat for many species of fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other types of organisms. On the
other side of the world, there has been an explosion of Humboldt squid populations, which threatens entire marine
ecosystems as they consume everything in their path. In such cases, it is actually necessary to ensure the destruction
of these creatures, rather than even considering protecting them.
In conclusion, it is true that wild animals are important enough to be protected whether due to their contributions
to nature or humanity. However, not all wild animals are of importance, can be protected, or perhaps even should
be protected. Therefore, the best course of action would hence simply be to determine which wild animals in which
regions should be protected. Others should be left to their own devices, or mass murdered.

Answer 2016 The IELTS Guy

http://theieltsguy.wix.com/home
https://www.facebook.com/theieltsguy
1
The IELTS Guy - https://www.facebook.com/theieltsguy - http://theieltsguy.wix.com/home