In my objection to Warren’s argument I argue that the weak animal rights position does not guarantee good environment policy. However, by giving sentient animals rights and thus protection they are an umbrella species and the entire ecosystem is protected. The degradation of an ecosystem that contains sentient animals affects the lives, health, pleasure, and pain. If the effects are negative to sentient animals then it is likely that whatever the cause of the environmental degradation would be ratified. For example, if sentient animals will suffer greatly because of a building be built then it would not be morally justifiable to eliminate or degrade an entire ecosystem. The sentient animals act as a protector of the environment in which they are located. The likeliness that there is an environment that does not have sentient animals is unlikely, so ecosystems would be protected because of the sentient animals involved.The conclusion drawn from this paper is that Warren’s argument is that using sentient as a distinguishing characteristic to determine what animals have rights creates bad environmental policy. Ecosystems should have value even if they do not include sentient animals as defined by Warren. Ecosystems as a whole should not be discarded. Although there are very few ecosystems that do not include sentient animals, a situation could arise where sentient animals rights are not a factor in an environmental situation. By only allowing sentient animals to have rights ecosystems can be harmed when sentient animals are not involved. As seen with the examples in my objection, entire ecosystems could be destroyed and it would be morally acceptable. Non-sentient organism can have value even though they do not feel pain. Animal rights arguments should not yield poor environmental policies. Animals and ecosystems need to be supported through animal rights, which are not accomplished by Warren’s weak animal rights position.