Some people believe that all wild animals should be protected. Others say that only a few wild animals should be protected. Discuss both view and give your own opinion.

It is true that people hold different opinions about the extent to which wild animals should be protected. While it is difficult to justify the protection of every wild animal, I believe that some wild animals ought to be conserved.

On the one hand, some people put forward the moral argument that humans have no right to kill any animal in the wild. They argue that it is violation of animal rights and subscribe to a view that it is necessary for everyone to treat animals humanely, and they correctly condemn many forms of animal exploitation, animals suffering and even animals slaughter in the world today. For example, animal lovers will argue the need to eliminate poaching of elephants in Africa or India and to establish more wildlife reserves. In terms of the oceans, there is an international campaign for an end to the practice of whaling.

On the other hand, I tend to agree with those who argue that only animals on the brink of extinction should be protected. Their view combine practical and moral arguments. Although they recognize the ethical dilemmas, they believe that the numbers of some species of animals must be regulated. Rats, for example, are everywhere and they are danger to human health, contaminating food and water and carrying diseases. If the consequences would be serious, therefore, people should mainly be concerned with protecting rare or endangered species of wild animals.

In conclusion, because it is impossible to protect every species of wild animal, I believe that priority should be given to saving those species which are in danger or becoming extinct.