That is, we fall into the trap of being anthropocentric. You may feel that there are some human emotions and thoughts in non-human animals, but be aware that nobody has been able to demonstrate that this is so. To do so is to be teleological, and only humans, as far as we know, are teleological. We cannot assume an animal loves its mate or its offspring. Because although a given species of, say, frog may have a clear image of who an appropriate mate is, it's impossible to imagine that this frog has a concept for species that would encompass other populations extending over a wider geographic area.
Species is clearly a human concept.
There is nothing uniquely human about modifying one's behavior based on experience. Now, this may seem like an overly objective way to proceed, but when you see the dangers in not knowing how or when to apply conscious thought to animals, I think you'll appreciate why it is better to proceed in this conservative manner. A bit of video on population intereractions among birds. Watch for behaviors that you might want to give emotions to, but shouldn't. At least not until someone is able to gather some evidence that to do so is appropriate.