The question of which species should be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is complex and controversial. The ESA was established with the goal of protecting all vulnerable groups, including subspecies and hybrids, but the costs of doing so can be prohibitive. In order to make informed decisions about which organisms to protect, certain criteria must be applied. These criteria include population size and distribution, importance of the organism in the ecosystem, and recreational potential. Population size and distribution are likely criteria for determining which organisms should be protected. If an organism has very low populations or is found only in a limited geographical area, it may be endangered and therefore in need of greater protection. However, this criterion can be complicated by the fact that there are some organisms such as: B. hybrids may be of low or limited population in nature. Another criterion that can be used to determine which organisms to protect is the importance of the organism in the ecosystem. For example, if a subspecies or hybrid plays an important role in maintaining ecosystem function, it may be more deserving of protection than similar organisms that do not play such an important role. This criterion is especially important when protecting hybrids. These organisms may have unique characteristics that are important to their ecosystem. A third criterion that can be used in deciding which species to protect is their recreational potential. If an organism is likely to recover from an endangered state with appropriate protection and management, it may be more deserving of protection than an organism less likely to recover. This criterion may be of particular relevance with respect to subspecies conservation, as these organisms may have unique adaptations that allow them to survive in certain environments. Ultimately, deciding which organisms to protect under ESA requires careful consideration of several factors. The ESA's original intention was to protect all vulnerable groups, but the reality is that resources may be limited and difficult decisions must be made. By considering criteria such as population size and distribution, ecological importance, and recreational potential, we can make more informed decisions about which organisms to protect. There may be compelling reasons to do so when considering the conservation of hybrids, subspecies, or local populations of a species when the entire species is not endangered. For example, hybrids may have unique genetic traits that are important to conserve, or local populations of species may be adapted to specific environmental conditions not found elsewhere. Conservation of these organisms can also have important cultural or ethical implications. However, there may also be limitations, objections, or weaknesses to hybrid or subspecies protection under an ESA. For example, some individuals may argue that protecting hybrids undermines conservation efforts in the original species or deprives them of resources to protect other vulnerable groups. In addition, some might argue that hybrids or subspecies do not meet the criteria for different species and therefore do not warrant protection under the ESA. In summary, deciding which organisms to protect under an ESA is complex and requires careful consideration of multiple factors. By applying criteria such as population size and distribution, ecological importance, and recreational potential, we can make more informed decisions about which organisms to protect. To protect hybrids, subspecies or local populations of species where the entire species may not be endangered