Wildlife conservation takes a lot out of governments: some think it is worth it, while others do not think so.

What could be their respective arguments supporting their stances?

The world over, expenditure on wildlife conservation is on the rise. Though very much needed, there are people support and oppose this spending. Obviously, they will have their arguments. Let me see what they are.

The advocates of wildlife protection may argue that this spending is nothing short of investing on green cover upkeep. For example, the forest cover with which the Planet breathes in is but the result of the funds allocated for wildlife protection. Besides, they may hold the view that human life is just one of the links of the chain of lives on the Planet, and one without the other will upset the balance. Above all, there could be a claim that wildlife is a huge source of income for many. For example, many African economies fall back on their income from wildlife to keep themselves fed and going.

Let me see the possible counter arguments. It might be argued that the world, especially the poor parts, has many other pressing priorities like food, shelter, medicine, education and the like, and so spending on these is more worth it than anything else. They may even hold the notion that human life is the most precious life on the Planet. Finally, there may be another plank that modern science and the heightened possibilities of technology may take care of the those issues the dwindling wildlife may raise. 

In short, both the schools may have many other arguments supporting and opposing the need for spending on the wild. But I, for one, am of the opinion that earmarking great funds for wildlife conservation is like investing in environment, ecology and existence.  

273 words. Ajaypeesdoc.30.1.013. 5.30am