So are you suggesting animals need to have "value to humans" before they are worth saving?
Isn't that a rather outdated view, given that we now understand how interconnected the planet is? It's almost impossible to tell what impact may result from allowing a species to die out. Most animals predate or are predated on - remove one and it upsets the balance.
I agree some animals have more values. History has taught us that we may not know their value until later. I'm thinking about the red wolves here. There is always debate whether or not to protect them because they are sometimes noted as a separate species from coyotes or grey wolves. I'm not a politician, but I think caution with species may be a good decision.
True. Some species are crucial for the survival of the planet. Cock roaches are repugnant, indeed! But they break down organic materials which return to the environment. We get rid of them by the billions. Likewise, some beaver species are protected, and they should be. They build dams which keep our wetlands viable and rivers stable. Think of the fishermen who would suffer in our nation.