Philosophically you don't have a leg to stand on making an argument for or against what is in the best interest of an incommunicable intelligent species.
For instance, you might be able to infer what a dairy cow desires, but that dairy cow's intelligence was molded by a dairy system. It is impossible to project that onto another instance even of the same species.
Is one wild deer thriving and happy with a meaningful attachment to family, and another suffering for nourishment daily? Likely.
Even concerted conservation efforts end up with unanticipated ramifications for the target and other species. The preservation of endangered species, particularly megafauna, is largely for the sake of human desires and human scientific purposes. And ironically, some of these preserved species are so captive (imprinted by our human environment for them) that they decide not to breed, not to continue their entire species. And it is the humans that are sad about it, not them.
For human morality's sake, then, I would posit that we are left only with the choice to take no action. We will either let wild be wild, or will be playing a human-centric game for eternity. There is no way to construct a world that is somehow better for other species and for us.
We either wild our own species, divide ourselves from the wild geographically, or live with the moral baggage of subjugating other species... Trying to minimize suffering based on our folly human ideas of where righteousness begins and ends.
PS I also play that righteousness game and eat a plant-based diet, take part in conservation efforts, etc. But I do so knowing it is a delusion :)