Question
5 Aug 2016

  • Spanish (Colombia)
Question about English (US)

The wildlife crossings have been proposed as a solution to connect fragments of forests and allow the movement of animals between the fragments. But, according to the new evidence, wildlife crossings appear to be useless because animals don' use it and natural areas continued been damaged.

Connect the remain of the forest by wildlife crossings seems to be an interesting idea to maintain the populations of different species of animals and improve their rates of reproduction. But, animals follow easy ways to cross such as avenues and streets. That behavior increases the rates of collisions or encounters between people and wild animals. Also, the financial resources invested in wildlife crossings are very expensive, so, it is a bad idea to waste that resources only in wildlife crossings. That budget could be invested in protecting the habitats and wild populations.

On the other hand, wildlife crossings are useless because they are installed in damaged areas, where populations don't have enough resources and their rates of reproduction are very low. Therefore, the financial resources invested in wildlife crossing could be invested on protecting the areas. That action probably increases the resources available and improve the rates of reproduction of the population.

For all these reasons, waste money in wildlife crossing is a bad idea to preserve habitats and wildlife. This money can be better invested in protecting a particular area and population of the human activities.
does this sound natural?

Leave your comments, please :)
Answers
Read more comments

  • Spanish (Mexico)
  • English (US) Near fluent

  • Spanish (Mexico)
  • English (US) Near fluent

  • Spanish (Colombia)

  • Spanish (Colombia)

  • English (US)

  • Spanish (Colombia)

  • Spanish (Mexico)
  • English (US) Near fluent

  • English (US)
Share this question
Similar questions
Recommended Questions