Naturalizing Values: Organisms and Species: by Holmes Rolsten, III

In his article, Rolston claims that many philosophers seem unable to separate humans from the rest of nature in such a way that any component of nature can have any intrinsic value on its own without this value being bestowed upon it by humans. Whether or not this statement is true, it is based on the belief that intrinsic value can be placed upon an object or living thing by a human or other being. This seems to contradict what I understand to be the meaning of intrinsic value: value that something possesses in itself or for its own sake, independently of anyone's opinion or judgment. If something or someone can bestow intrinsic value upon something else, how can this value even be considered intrinsic following that definition?
Rolston's claim that there is non-anthropogenic intrinsic value in nature seems redundant to me. If intrinsic value exists independently of anyone's beliefs or opinions, I would expect that intrinsic value is always non-anthropogenic. Rolston might reply to this by stating that one can give something intrinsic value if one believes it to be valuable for its own sake and not in an instrumental way. However, if a person decides that something has intrinsic value, there has to be some characteristic of this "intrinsically valuable" thing that this person likes or values himself/herself, even if this characteristic does not directly benefit the person. In other words, there has to be some particular reason why a person would deem something intrinsically valuable; no one would argue that something has intrinsic value unless this thing benefited or brought pleasure to that person in some way. When a person bestows value upon something, this value cannot be intrinsic since it is based on the person's opinion of that thing and is therefore dependent on someone's opinion or judgment.