This film is twisted when you really think about it. I rarely like giving away plot points or endings so if you don't want spoilers at all, do not continue beyond this point. So, in the end, it turns out that the three kids committed a number of property crimes (trespassing etc) but that was rendered all justifiable because the animal they saved was an endangered one. First, this implies that any means, at all, that somebody takes to prevent the destruction of an animal's habitat, is justified because they are endangered. Further, that they are justified in doing this on their own, and not, for instance, contacting the EPA or their foreign equivalents. This puts animal rights above legal consequences. Second, this implies that such justifications would not have been applicable, had the animal not been endangered. This puts one set of animals, and their habitats above and beyond another set of animals, and their habitats. This is in spite of the fact that the kids did not realize the animal was endangered until the end. Thus, their entire effort was for naught, until the animal was discovered on the EPA's protection list. As is standard, if I sat through the whole thing it gets at least 10%.