Moral and ethical consideration can only be given in degrees of reciprocity.
That is, a rock cannot give any moral consideration to you when it falls on your head, and you cannot give any real moral consideration to that rock.
Similarly, mosquitoes do what mosquitoes do, and if a mosquitoes bites you, it’s only being a mosquito. There is no moral judgement here. It bites you. You swat it and kill it. The mosquito chose a bad target.
The mosquito has no moral consideration for biting you, and your swatting of the mosquito isn’t a moral consideration.
The same applies to hungry animals. We don’t blame a wolf for being a wolf. Neither do we blame anyone for killing a wolf to defend themselves.
These are not moral or ethical considerations except for some very silly people.
Wolves, mosquitoes and other creatures do not view others in terms of any morality or ethics.
Now, take the common spider in your home. If it’s not bothering you, it’s a good thing to have. It eliminates pests such as flies and mosquitoes. It’s a benefit.
However, should that spider overstep its “rightful role” and intrude into the wrong space, we kill it. Without any moral consideration.
That is, when the spider intrudes into our “space” too far, it puts itself in peril.
The same goes for higher order creatures such as mice, rats, racoons, bears, etc.
When bears intrude on your property and threaten your family, you shoot them. This isn’t a question for sane people. This is a question of self preservation.
The purpose here wasn’t to argue an infinite number of cases. The purpose was to argue a general case for moral/ethical considerations and reciprocity. Specifically, in cases where there is no reciprocity, there is no moral consideration.
(There are other cases, however, in the interests of moving along quickly. they are ignored.)