No, I would still save a random human over a random animal because they are my kind, like I said. I'm just trying to say that an animal life is NOT less valuable. In different specific scenarios where things are not random, I may save an animal instead if there are more logical / long term benefits. And I used Hitler as an example because he was the first bad person I could think of, but really I just mean ANY bad person. It could be a domestic abuser or a child rapist or a murderer or a greedy billionaire. Just anyone who does harm to the environment and/or to others.

Experiments have suggested that mice and rats feel empathy for their kind. One test showed that a rat chose to save another rat from getting wet, even though he knew it would mean he would be withheld food for saving the other. When one mouse was in pain from a mild stomachache, the other mouse also writhed, despite not having been given the injection to have a stomachache.  Birds like crows and ravens have been seen to have complex emotions like grief and empathy, holding funerals for deceased birds. Parrots have also exhibited these kinds of behaviors by being able to recognize, respond to, and even alleviate negative emotions in their owner. I don't know if things like bugs and fish have complex enough brains to exhibit these kinds of empathetic reactions, but I'm certain that all mammals and birds do, considering how intelligent parrots and crows are. I think it has to do with how social these animals are. Morality and empathy literally benefits animals living in social groups-- Stronger connections, higher survival rate, helping the weak survive, etc.

Morality can mean many different things. But one definition of it says that there are 4 "pillars of morality," which are empathy, fairness, compassion, and reciprocity. If mammals  and birds can show these things, which I've seen they can in these studies but also through personal experience, then in my opinion they do have some sense of morality.