Obviously the answer to that question is "No!", but so many comments from these twovideos of hyenas eating a pregnant zebra and wildebeest that remained alive for 8 minutes before expiring, have people openly blaming the camera man for not protecting the pregnant herbivores, and even hating the predators themselves for eating them in the first place. The most notable being a commentor named shajc3 on the wildebeest video, who openly advocated killing all predators (I'm not kidding) in order to save herbivores from gruesome deaths. No matter how much other commentors tried to convince him that doing such a thing would be a BAD idea (including significant loss of biodiversity, the lack of predators as a control against overpopulation and stripping of vegetation, and the basic fact that carnivores don't have any say in how their evolution builds them to catching prey a certain way), she/he continues to believe that systematic hunting of predators for their "cruel" ways is far more preferable that having the poor, innocent herbivores suffering a (admittedly) horrible death. He even tries to offer justifications for killing them. For biodiversity, he brushed off the concept by claiming that humans can't save all animals and that putting millions of dollars into saving unimportant animals is pointless and they will die anyway (including the "insignificant" poisonous treefrog). He actually suggested that wolves were not needed since deer and elk populations can be maintained by human hunters (which is obviously not true). To anyone who tries to voice an opposing viewpoint, he calls them killers and monsters for allowing predators to continue living, and says that since humans are a part of nature, it means they should butt into it in order to decrease animal suffering. And for the hyenas themselves, he actually says that he has less respect for the hyenas killing the pregnant wildebeest than if they took down a healthy fully grown male, even calling them fools for "picking on the weak". He even says, word for word, that what is happening in the videos are "A wrong that can be easily corrected and not be allowed to continue no matter what justification" and that "some book or theory saying that predators are important and need to be preserved in the wild. That may have been the case hundreds of years ago but things have changed for the better". What's worse is that there are so many commentors that are like this guy. Although obviously not as Knight Templar, there are still many people who either blame the camera people for not stopping and helping or hating the animal for doing the killing, including this video of African Wild Dogs killing a Nyala antelope. So for all this, what I want to ask is if it's right for people to interfere in nature to help animals who are in pain, rather than watching them get killed.
Obviously the answer to that question is "No!", but so many comments from these two
videos
of hyenas eating a pregnant zebra and wildebeest that remained alive for 8 minutes before expiring, have people openly blaming the camera man for not protecting the pregnant herbivores, and even hating the predators themselves for eating them in the first place. The most notable being a commentor named shajc3 on the wildebeest video, who openly advocated killing all predators (I'm not kidding) in order to save herbivores from gruesome deaths. No matter how much other commentors tried to convince him that doing such a thing would be a BAD idea (including significant loss of biodiversity, the lack of predators as a control against overpopulation and stripping of vegetation, and the basic fact that carnivores don't have any say in how their evolution builds them to catching prey a certain way), she/he continues to believe that systematic hunting of predators for their "cruel" ways is far more preferable that having the poor, innocent herbivores suffering a (admittedly) horrible death. He even tries to offer justifications for killing them. For biodiversity, he brushed off the concept by claiming that humans can't save all animals and that putting millions of dollars into saving unimportant animals is pointless and they will die anyway (including the "insignificant" poisonous treefrog). He actually suggested that wolves were not needed since deer and elk populations can be maintained by human hunters (which is obviously not true). To anyone who tries to voice an opposing viewpoint, he calls them killers and monsters for allowing predators to continue living, and says that since humans are a part of nature, it means they should butt into it in order to decrease animal suffering. And for the hyenas themselves, he actually says that he has less respect for the hyenas killing the pregnant wildebeest than if they took down a healthy fully grown male, even calling them fools for "picking on the weak". He even says, word for word, that what is happening in the videos are "A wrong that can be easily corrected and not be allowed to continue no matter what justification" and that "some book or theory saying that predators are important and need to be preserved in the wild. That may have been the case hundreds of years ago but things have changed for the better". What's worse is that there are so many commentors that are like this guy. Although obviously not as Knight Templar, there are still many people who either blame the camera people for not stopping and helping or hating the animal for doing the killing, including this video
of African Wild Dogs killing a Nyala antelope. So for all this, what I want to ask is if it's right for people to interfere in nature to help animals who are in pain, rather than watching them get killed.