In each domains of protecting wild animals, the most direct, most touching, and also the easiest to initiate the sympathetic chord, without doubt is “the rescue of each individual wild animal”. Whenever onae sees a recovered kestrel return to the blue sky, each attendee will undoubtedly feel moved with hot tears in the eyes.
But, what is very easily neglected by the volunteer is the value of protecting each individual wild animal usually does not lie in the individual wild animal itself, but more frequently in the entire species behind individual. In this aspect, this is different from the rescue of the weak individual in the human society.
There are many differences between the animals and human beings. According to evolves biologist Dawkins et al. the viewpoints, the biggest difference possibly lies in that the animals are lack of social culture. But here, the culture is defined as “the behavior pattern having nothing to do with the heredity, but which may be imitated and inherited”.
Human beings depend on culture for heritage. As time passes by, the culture has been accumulated to distinguish one ethnic group from another. Therefore, the protection of culture is essential. However, the wild animals depend on the genes for heritage, therefore, its essential to maintain the natural genes. As long as the wild animals can pass the genes down, the entire species survive.
Therefore, wild animal's value mostly lies in its gene, and the extension of the species is more essential. The individual death is inevitable, but the gene may exist forever through the gene bank of the species, maintaining the species existence. When we protect the wild animal individual, this is more a measure than a goal of protecting the wild animals. Therefore, the Yellowstone Park has introduced the wolf to control deer's quantity and eliminate the old, weak, sick and the disabled. Such behavior is beyond imagination among the human beings, but in the nature, this is actually completely normal and reasonable. We often observe the wild animals with the judgment we may have to the human beings, neglecting the objective differences.
But if species itself is in not in danger, then to protect the individual sedulously can do nothing good to the entire species. If stemming from other reasons, we still hope to protect these individuals from the death and that does not belong to the narrow sense of animal protection.