The accusation
"Wanting to help wild animals is arrogant. It's trying to mess with the natural course of things."
But we intervene all the time
Humans intervene in nature constantly, and almost nobody calls it arrogance:
- dams, farms, cities, and roads;
- vaccines for animals that could pass diseases to people or livestock;
- programs to save endangered species or kill "invasive" species.
In other words, helping animals in the wild is already accepted, as long as the goal is human or environmental. The charge of arrogance only shows up when the goal is the good of the animals themselves.
Nothing shows that intervening is wrong
On top of that, the objection doesn't show why intervening would be wrong. Curing a disease also interferes with the natural course of things. And we think that's great when it comes to people.
"Deciding the animals' fate"
Sometimes the accusation is different: "By helping, we're deciding these animals' fate." But not helping is also a decision that affects their fate. There's no way to avoid deciding.
In short
- Humans already intervene a lot in nature, for human and environmental reasons.
- The accusation only comes up when the goal is to help the animals.
- Not helping also decides the animals' fate.