It it then becomes one more and one more and one more.
Protection can not be subject to convenience like other laws cannot be, you can not pick and choose which law you like just because it applies to other other species.

Once again you are looking at the one animal in isolation. That newt may be part of a breeding pair and one breeding pair can make a significant difference in an endangered species. Removing a couple of newts from an area also reduces the chance that two newts will meet and reproduce, depending on where the area is located, these newts may be the bridging the area between the ranges of other newts, if they are removed, dispersing newts from other populations will be less likely to find a mate as well, furthermore, if these newts were indeed bridging the area between other newt ranges, if they are removed, the other newt populations will be more isolated from each other before which can result in inbreeding and inbreeding depression and the production of offspring that sufferes from gentic defects reducing the populations fitness and chances of survival.
And as Mattshark pointed out correctly, it's one newt at first and then another and another and another, it is this sort of attitude that is so damaging, just because the benefits may not be immediately apparent does not make the animal worthless, this sort of approach to conservation ends up in conservation efforts being put in place far too late rendering them basically useless.

Furthermore, while it was not mentioned in the article, I would be extremely surprised if they will not receive some form of compensation. As endangered animals settling somewhere is generally a desirable thing, people often get paid to allow these animals to use the land so that they will not take measures to remove them if they become inconvenient. Most resettlement schemes include plans and funds to deal with compensation of disgruntled land (or in the case of carnivores lifestock) owners.

You know a few cats would solve all thier problems.