While much of the foregoing has been about conceptual issues in conservation and what ought not be done as a conservationist, I would like to continue transitioning into a more positive approach out of the belief that appropriate activity is a critical part of biotic conservation. It is easy to take an ethical approach that dwells on the negatives of past and present abuses, whereby one is effectively frozen. However, if conservation is to become a discipline where service is taken seriously—whereby, as the name suggests, we truly serve together—a move must be made, where possible, from inaction to compassionate action. The following set of hypothetical scenarios are meant to help one mentally simulate variants of a situation in which a crucial decision must be made to act or not act on behalf of a creature. These scenarios, although fictional, are in certain respects not unlike the seemingly random encounters individuals have where they are forced to decide whether to rescue or not rescue an animal apparently in need. Some key aspects of the scenarios, however, mark them as departures from the norm, and help demonstrate the current confusion of motivations and reasons for conservation. I have chosen to construct them as thought experiments because of the privacy that often shrouds people’s encounters with wild animals, coupled with an attendant lack of accountability for those animals’ vital interests.