I disagree. Harm being done is bad even if its not by a moral agent. If a tree falls in the forest and someone gets crushed thats bad.

Bad≠immoral

We have forestry professionals that actively make sure that trails are safe, they clear trees that are likely to pose a risk to hikers. We rescue animals from natural disasters.

Wait, so we make sure trails are safe because by not doing so we would be immoral? If it's immoral to let trees fall on people, why should we not clear forests?

Im trying to demonstrate that if you actually practiced the belief that moral obligates to not do harm necessarily extend to prevention of all harm you I hold that it leads to hard, if not impossible to meet demands.

Hence why an obligation to not cause harm should not, in all cases, lead to an obligation to prevent all harm.

Animals arent people, the considerations we give to people are different from those we give animals, and come from different foundations. They have no moral agency. That doesn't mean we cannot take into consideration their suffering at all.