Saving Species from Extinction

There is much debate when it comes to what out limited resources can do regarding which species they should or shouldn't save from extinction. There are so many different pros and cons when it comes to this debate. Some say that funds should be focused only on the species that can lift their numbers to thousands than the ones that do not last as long. There are those that believe that rescuing an animal from extinction is worth the time and money, where others believe it is a waste of limited resources. Most animals that are rescued cannot survive without some kind of human intervention; which in turn represents an ongoing cost and a dependency on humans. Due to some species requiring so many resources and others so very little, it makes it hard to determine which species to invest in. If you took the same investment and put it towards saving one species, so many more species could have been saved for the exact same amount. Most conservatives actually look into why a species is going extinct in the first place, in order to head off the problem that caused the near extinction in the beginning. Another subject of debate is why they should save one endangered species and not the other. It seems to be a popularity contest for instance; the Bald Eagle was nursed back to tens of thousands and the Dodo bird was left to go extinct. I believe that all species deserve help not just certain ones. The resources should be spread equally to help all species from going extinct.