Some people suggest that humans should only protect animals which directly benefit to their life rather than ones did not. Personally, I totally disagree with this suggestion based on some reasons that are explain in this essay.
The first weakness in this view is that usefulness is often indirect and not particularly visible. Some animals provide clear benefit, such as food, pollination, medical research, but many others seem unimportant only because their contibution is less obvious. In naturem, however, animals do not exist separately. They are the part of connected system where small changes can influent more than expectation. A specie without spercific human function could contribute to controlling pests, protecting plants, serving be a part of food chain that keeps ecosystem stability. If protection only given to animals with visible contribution, the result may be highly weaken biological diversity, making it effect to human life
Besides, this is related to moral issue. Animal disappearance is not due to taking its course, but mainly because human activities cause deforestaion, water pollution, greenhouse emissions that destroy natural habitats. Therefore, human should take responsibility for conservation of species in ecosystem rather than evaluating self interest. In other words, all animals deserve to saving, not only clearly benefical ones. Of course, government can not protect animals equally because practical advantage may sometimes influence prioritizes. An appropiate policy should considers rarity and ecosystem importance, instead of only commercial and practical usefulness.
In conclusion, I do not suppor the idea that only useful animals to humans can be protected. I believe that all species have their own importance in ecosystem, people should conservate all of them because of moral issue and natural diversity and balance.