Wild Animals in Urban Areas

Some individuals argue that wild animals should be prohibited from residing in urban areas. However, in my opinion, despite the potential threats they pose to health and safety, these animals should be allowed to remain as they contribute to the character and uniqueness of a city.

Supporters of the removal of wild animals from urban areas often highlight the potential dangers they present. For example, in various regions of New England, deer can cause traffic accidents. However, the actual likelihood of motorists sustaining injuries from such accidents is relatively low. A more significant concern revolves around species that serve as carriers for infectious diseases. Rats, which are prevalent in most cities, are a prime example, as they can transmit diseases. The most notorious case being the outbreak of bubonic plague, known as the Black Death, which devastated Europe in the 14th century.

Nevertheless, these examples are exceptions, and in general, wild animals contribute to the identity and character of a city or town. In certain cities in Asia, locals coexist harmoniously with species of monkeys and wild birds. Singapore is a notable example, where it is not uncommon to encounter rare species of monkeys, tropical birds, and wild pigs. These animals are not only cherished by the local residents but also serve as attractions for tourists. The city has successfully managed to control their population numbers to prevent them from becoming a nuisance while allowing them to be an integral part of the city's unique charm.

In conclusion, despite the potential risks of disease transmission and safety concerns, the presence of wild animals in urban areas is justified by the contributions they make to the character and identity of a city. Individuals always have the choice to relocate to areas with fewer wildlife if they have concerns about coexistence.