Also worth adding, animals are perfectly capable of wrecking their environment if left unchecked.
Herbivores in safe conditions tend to rapidly multiply and decimate plant life, negatively impacting many species beyond themselves. What keeps them in check is carnivores, who thin their numbers down to manageable levels. This is the reason why it's illegal to hunt wolves in most US states, for example, as deer are prone to this kind of damaging overpopulation, and wolves have already been hunted down to dangerous levels in the past.
Another example is rabbits in Australia. Rabbits were first brought to Australia in the 19th century, and ever since then have been a persistent problem for the entire continent. Because they are adaptable and aren't a natural part of the Australian ecosystem, they quickly grew in numbers, which resulted in overgrazing, damage to crops and soil as well as upwards of 300 indigenous species of plants and animals. Rabbits are, I believe, the most dangerous invasive species in Australia to this day. You might say this is the humans' fault, seeing as we were the ones who introduced rabbits to Australia in the first place, and that isn't wrong, but it goes to show what kind of damage animals are capable of when unrestrained by their natural habitat.
And humans are unrestrained in much the same way.
Nature, at the end of the day, isn't a sapient being. It's not a person, it doesn't "tell" or "dictate" anything. Nature is the collective of everything not created by human hands, and it came to be the way it is through millions of years of rolling the dice on every living thing on the planet, not any kind of thought or reason or goal. To ascribe abstract human concepts to it, such as laws and morality, is a spiritual belief. There's nothing wrong with spirituality, but one disadvantage of it is that it might be hard or even impossible to make a point on its basis to people who aren't similarly spiritual.
