It's absolutely amazing that the left wing hippie tree-hugger types have a keen understanding that we shouldn't mess with certain parts of nature. I wouldn't have to try very hard to convince a self proclaimed environmentalist that if we take away the need for a wild animal to hunt for food, said wild animal is going to become accustomed to the new tradition, and now have trouble surviving in the wild. A lion properly raised in captivity is forced to hunt (or at minimum chase) his food if the handlers want the lion to have any sense of having to work for what they eat. A lion raised in captivity this way might survive in the wild again, but the odds aren't what they would have been. We still meddled. Survival would be despite our intervention, not because of it.
I guess it's unfair to be surprised that left wingers grasp this concept, what's more amazing is that they want to apply the opposite to humans. They push for a nanny-state and think that a family of 6 living on welfare is just being repressed or something and with the right cocktail-of-handouts they will start contributing to society. Riiight. Who would give up something for nothing? We're basically raising the bottom half of our nation (on the scale of fiscal contribution) to expect handouts and depend upon the top half for their survival. We, as a country, are raising them in captivity and expecting that they'll have enough desire to break out and live in the wild. So much for the discomfort leg of the human action model, unless of course ANY action is acceptable, then we're set because we've Robin-hooded ourselves in order to remove the discomfort of poverty. I'm happy to help the less fortunate, but I'd like it to be on my terms. It's not biblical, but a common phrase: "God helps those who help themselves" Totally not true, but the idea applies. This dude helps those who help themselves.