You missed the point. It's the way you're choosing your priorities that is wrong.
I could just say that you're dicriminating against animals, on the sole basis that they're a genetically different from us. If you allow discrimination on a genetic basis, we could easily justify discrimination for people with Down's syndrome (since they have an extra chromossome) or other hereditary diseases.
The issue of whether animals deserve full moral status (or as much moral status as human beings) is far from solved. Just read treatises on modern ethics and you'll see it. For instance, read
Animal Liberation , by Peter Singer. There are other books, but this is a good introduction.
As far as my ethical system goes, I think that all sentient life deserves the same moral status (regardless of whether they're humans, klingons or wookies). Now, whether other mammals should be considered as sentient beings is another question entirely, and I don't pretend to have an answer to it. As Oscar Wilde would say, I'm not young enough to know everything.
The problem with your approach is that you just assume,
a priori, that animals are morally inferior to humans, and deserve less moral consideration. I'm not saying that they're our moral equals, either. I'm just saying that the question is tougher than it appears at first glance, and that "humans deserve atention first" needs a stronger justification than "we're of the same species".
Species-discrimination is the same as racial discrimination among humans; it just works in a different level.