I see a definite conflict if we look at Bambi as another example of the "man vs. nature" dilemma. While I think that Disney's attempt to make the animals and scenery as realistic looking as possible is noble and quite evident in the film's art, by imbuing his characters with human-like expressions, facial characteristics, and movements, he is inherently detracting from the natural world he tried to create. While I understand that no child would want to watch a film where none of the characters speak, and anthropomorphizing Bambi and his friends makes them easier for audiences to relate to, taking man out of nature can no longer apply. The human attributes these animals posess put man back in the forest, and it is for that reason, we are able to feel for and sympathize with these characters. On the other hand, we never see truely see man in the forest although it is suggested. By never actually being able to put a face to the actions, the audience sees man as a savage and unknown presence, just as people used to perceive the wilderness. Man, therefore, symbolizes an older and traditional view of nature while the animals and thicket respresent more modern attitudes. Perhaps this duality or role-reversal was intended to illustrate that there aren't infact two separate worlds, but one that is both dangerous and humane. By recognizing ourselves in each, we are one step closer to reconciling the trouble with wilderness.
Also (and just as an aside), why is it that the hunters dogs dont speak. Is it because the are part of man's world? Its interesting to me that being a componant of the human sphere would prevent the dogs from communicating even though the animals in the wild do.