Shut my mouth and strike the demons

I'm pretty frustrated with environmentalists in Oregon (and across the US) right now. There is a pretty major feud going on between Oregon farmers who rely on water for irrigation from the Klamath River and environmentalists who say the river's supply to farmers should be cut off in order to protect a few of the endangered species of Salmon.

This is a tough situation for me to deal with, because I do understand that it's extremely important to make efforts to save protected species, but when protecting these fish has a major impact on humans I struggle with choosing sides.

To cut off the water supply to the farmers will cause loss of crops, major loss of income, possibly loss of job and home and potentially have many other damaging outcomes. But to allow the farmers to continue using the River's supply will possibly be the source of extinction for this species of Salmon. The fish won't be able to make their annual runs to mate and the water will be too low for most of them to even survive.

But where do we as humans draw the line? Do we continue to make efforts to help keep a certain type of fish from dying out or do we favor the needs of other humans? I believe personally that people hold so much more weight in this issue than do fish. I believe that we have a right to uphold our own even at the risk of losing fish. I just don't know when environmentalist came to the conclusion that any animal of earth or of the sea is worth more than the people that inhabit this earth.

ESPN has an article on the subject here

I don't know if anyone is interested but I would really like some feedback on thoughts and feelings concerning this situation.