Urban areas are increasingly becoming habitats for various wild birds and animals. While some individuals advocate for the protection of this wildlife, others argue that they should be removed to ensure safety and order in human settlements. Both viewpoints have merit, and this essay will discuss these perspectives before presenting a personal opinion.
Proponents of urban nature protection emphasize the ecological and moral responsibility of man to nature. Urban wildlife contributes greatly to ecological balance. For example, birds such as pigeons and sparrows help disperse seeds, while predators such as owls and hawks control rodent populations. Removing them can disrupt these natural processes, which can lead to unintended environmental consequences. In addition, the presence of wildlife in cities strengthens the connection between people and nature, even in heavily urbanized environments. Such interactions can educate urban residents about the importance of biodiversity and nature conservation. Ethically, many believe that these animals have the right to live with people in cities, especially since urbanization often encroaches on their natural habitats.
On the other hand, proponents of removing wildlife from towns and cities argue that such animals can threaten human safety and infrastructure. For example, animals such as raccoons and monkeys have been known to damage property, break trash cans, and even interfere with electrical systems, causing power outages. In addition, birds such as pigeons are often associated with the spread of diseases such as histoplasmosis or salmonella, which pose a health risk. To ensure public safety and reduce nuisance, some argue that these animals should be moved to suitable habitats outside city limits.
In my opinion, the coexistence of wildlife and urban populations is achievable and beneficial if managed responsibly. Instead of resorting to outright removal, authorities should implement measures to minimize potential risks. For instance, secure waste disposal systems can deter animals from scavenging, while public awareness campaigns can educate people on how to safely interact with urban wildlife. In cases where specific species pose significant risks, relocation should be considered as a last resort.
In conclusion, while concerns about safety and property damage may justify the removal of certain problematic species, the broader objective should be to protect and coexist with urban wildlife. By implementing effective management strategies, cities can preserve biodiversity while creating safer and more enriching environments for both people and animals.