Affiliate Marketing Secrets

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!