If removing some critical element of an ecosystem has a chance of triggering a complete ecological collapse that, for instance, wipes our human food chain (the way I imagine a total and sudden extinction of pollination agents might), then yes: I don't want to accidentally kill billions trying to save millions.

I don't know if this is generally plausible, or if it is a significant concern in this particular situation, but I certainly think it cause to be cautious until I have more information.

That said, lives are being lost, right now, while we're being cautious.

No, I am not.

I personally rate the probability of catastrophic negative effects of this action as significantly lower than the probability of any negative effects, and the probability of no negative effects.

I am also speaking from a position of ignorance, and I don't like making decisions from ignorance.

I don't know what the ill effects would be, but the benefit is clear. If more cheap information is readily available, I want it (and some has been provided). If some amount of expensive evidence would increase my estimate of catastrophic effects, and that evidence can be clearly defined and gathered, I want it. If only vague, hard to measure risks remain, I say do it.