Affiliate Marketing Secrets

The sea lamprey is an invasive species that was introduced into the Great Lakes. What is its niche?

This question here I believe is a big one that the entire human race needs to rethink.
Which animals deserve protection? How do we choose which animals to protect by law and which ones not to protect? Which animals should we rightly kill and when does killing cross the line? The human race appears confused when it comes to these questions as we have a large tendency to contradict ourselves ( of course we contradict ourselves in most everything we do! ) Here is a proposed way to answer these questions.
RELAVANCE!!!! If an ant is killed either on accident, on purpose, or eaten for food. Its life can be easily replaced by another in the hive. Ants reproduce quickly so a single casualty is not much of a loss. The blandings turtle takes up to 15 years to reach sexual maturity. A single death of an adult or juvinile blandings turtle has the potential to influence the entire population! Therefore by the relevance theory the blandings turtle should recieve more legal protection than the ant.
All theories have flaws when it comes to philosophy! Of course I know we should never stick with just one but bring together a diversity of ideas to formulate our own personal opinion. Here are some of the flaws I have identified with the Relevance theory.
1. Endangered species- If an animal population is dying out who is to say if the species is worth saving or not? Once a species becomes rare its ecological significance usualy drops.
Ex: the giant panda feeds mainly on bamboo, which was previously a plentyful resource. Today bamboo is scarce so humans spend tons of money trying to save the pandas. Because the need for a creature to keep bamboo in check is gone, the panda no longer serves as important of a niche. How do we decide if it is worth saving or not?
2. Invasive species- when are they beneficial and when aren’t they? Should we judge this solely on how well it fits into a new niche?
Ex: Burmese pythons are loose in southern United States. Some argue that they do not belong and eat animals that shouldn’t be eaten. Others argue that humans destroyed other predators that previously fed on these animals and the snakes are taking advantage of a wide open niche. What should we do?
3. Personal preference- don’t lie to yourself, humans favor some animals over others just because we want to. Cats and dogs will always have more protection than snakes and insects. When is it approperiate to listen to reason and when is it aproperiate to listen to our personal desires?
Ex: Lets say a feral cat comes by and eats a pet duck. Now lets say a burmese python comes by and eats a pet duck. For killing the snake I would be praised for removing an innvasive species, for killing the cat I could be arrested for animal cruelty.
I tried to keep this question neutral ( although bias is inevitable ). When answering look at these details as topics for discusion, do not hold them as my own personal opinions!
If you also believe this is an important thing for humans to consider star this question as important!

Well, it is a bit like this:
If all the people in your street moved out and left the houses empty, some homeless people, or squatters might see those homes and take the opportunity to move in. They would be ‘an invasive species moving into a new open niche’, although I mean no offence to squatters or homeless people. The homeless people would be quite hardy and would probably adapt quite quickly to their new home, having not had one before, whereas other people who have a home already might think long and hard before they might move in to the empty homes, if ever. These would be less invasive, not so hardy species.
I hope you get the picture with this analogy. I am not sure that it is 100% correct, but it is sort of the idea. Some things in science are explained in a very odd way, when in fact, they can be just common sense if explained a different way.