The objection
"Nature doesn't care about suffering and death. Suffering and death are part of life. Animal advocates won't accept that."
Animal advocates do accept it
Actually, people who want to help wild animals know very well that suffering and death are part of life. That's exactly why they want to help.
The real question
Maybe the objection means something else: that suffering and death should be part of life, and that we shouldn't try to reduce them.
But saying something is part of life doesn't show that it should be. Disease is part of human life, and we still invented medicine and hospitals. Hunger is part of human history, and we still try to end it.
Only for animals?
Someone might say: "The rule 'if it's part of life, it shouldn't be prevented' only applies to natural harms that animals suffer." But then they'd have to explain why it would apply only to them. Without that explanation, the rule is just another double standard.
In short
- Animal advocates know suffering and death are part of life.
- "It's part of life" doesn't mean "it should be part of life."
- In the human case, we fight what's part of life when it does harm.