Humans and Nature

When I think of wildlife rehabilitation, I think of humans providing wild animals with a second chance at life, in response to the disruption of their lives by humans; an attempt to right the wrongs of our species.  This would include animals that have been hit by cars, caught in snares, and attacked by house pets.  And then there are other cases, such as a fawn that arrived two days ago after having been attacked by a mink.  A few thoughts came to my mind upon first hearing of the injured animal, and during further consideration thereafter. 

Of course, the first was, oh, the poor baby left on its own to withstand an unprovoked attack.  This seems to be the immediate response of the general majority, as we are unable to bear the thought of anything being killed, in spite of the fact that we are guilty of murders a plenty as a species from the food that we eat to the wars that we fight, which is an entirely different discussion.  Also, we tend to have difficulty accepting the fact that death is part of the natural order of things. 

This brings me to my second thought, which was that the mink was denied its dinner.  A significant energy load is required by an animal, in order to obtain food, whether it be via hunting, scavenging, or grazing.  Energy to locate specific food sources or the most energy rich sources, energy to collect or attack that food, and energy to consume it.  The mink was in the midst of this process, devoting so much of itself to this particular prey, yet all for nothing.  Maybe it had not eaten for a few days and would not have adequate energy to follow through this food cycle again.  Maybe it will starve. 

And what of the suffering that the fawn had to endure?  If the mink was allowed to finish what it started, then the fawn might have been dead within minutes.  But instead, it remained alive for hours, during capture, transport via car, ferry, and car again, a physical examination, and waiting in a crate for the arrival of a doctor to officially determine that there was no way it could be saved.  Even though, the fawn was “humanely” euthanized in the end, how humane was that whole escapade?  All because the attack had been witnessed at a family friendly campground and the adults did not want the children to see or even be aware of death in their general vicinity.  It was easier to send the fawn off to the wildlife hospital, so that they could ignorantly tell their children that it was safe from the big, bad mink and that it would be okay. 

The final thought was actually brought up by a co-worker, as to why the fawn had been attacked in the first place.  The wound sustained was on its face, which suggested that the fawn did not even try to run away, even though they are apparently fully capable of doing so as soon as they are born.  Natural selection was likely at work, weeding out the weak or sick, in favor of individuals that are capable of living in their natural habitat and coping with the dangers within it. 

So my question is, how involved should we get?  There is a reason why animal parents abandon or remove individual offspring from their nest, den, or what have you.  Should we be interfering with this selective process out of our own desire to prevent suffering?  Are we even qualified to "play god" in determining who lives or dies?  Nature has been working in its mysterious ways much longer than humans have roamed, much less dominated the Earth.  We have removed ourselves so far from nature that we are generally no longer able to comprehend these mysteries. 

Perhaps, this is why many people turn to religion, as there is some void that was once occupied by a connection to the Earth and its creatures.  We still feel the pangs of this void, this separation, and we struggle to fill it, so that the pain might end, we may become more enlightened, and we may understand the meaning of this life.  Yet, religion is just another human creation, which seems to further distance us from whence we came.  It creates a system of morals, of right and wrong, of heaven and hell that are completely unheard of among other species. 

Today, these morals do seem quite necessary, given the complex nature and life that humans have constructed for themselves.  Yet, just as one religious denomination tries to push its beliefs onto another, so we try to apply our morals to other living creatures.  But it just does not work.  Though we inhabit the same Earth, we live in completely different worlds.  And so, just as with different religions and cultures, we should learn to accept the practices and beliefs of our fellow beings.  We need to stop anthropomorphizing and try to see the world through the eyes of the mink, the fawn, the leaves that the fawn consumes, or the bacteria that enrich the soil for the plant life.  Only then may we be able to answer the question of what our responsibilities are to life as a whole.