THE LOYAL FAMILY

The only creature who shows loyalty here is the companion of the injured bird.  So once again you have mistitled a submission.  
 
And leaving aside the question of how and where the female bird injured one of her "uplifting organs"  (not to mention that running up a tree is something that birds do not do,  how did she get up into a tree if she could no longer fly, especially if her nest was in a bush.?  
 
BTW, if the male was already in front of the female, why would he have to run anywhere to be her shield?  

Baldwin, please read the poem again to understand it better. I don't want to interfere before your doing so.

A second reading only confirms not only that your submission is poorly written but that it is as incoherent as I already noted it is and that it contains a lot of nonsense.  If you think otherwise, please do what you almost always run away from doing and demonstrate how and why my remarks are off the mark.    
 
In any case,  it hardly measures up to one of your own criteria for what a piece has to be centered in for it to be something worth reading --- i.e., an important subject.

"Baldwin, please read the poem again to understand it better. I don't want to interfere before your doing so."

You don't want to prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly?  That's what "interfere" means.

BTW, your syntax makes you say that you don't want to interfere before I interfere.

Yes, l don't want your wrong criticism of the poem to be carried out properly. That's why l interfere.
1-The male is the one that received the injury, and the female that sacrificed and lived with it on land. Then the female flew up the tree,"One day hunters saw the female... up a tree." For sure, Baldwin, birds can't climb up a tree.
2- The male is the one that sacrificed itself to save the female from the hunters. So we can say that both of them sacrificed themselves, the female, living on land, and the male its life. Do you understand. Baldwin? Now after understanding the poem, you can criticize it because you can't be a good critic without understanding the poem, Baldwin.

And you think that all of this is clear in what you wrote?

More importantly,  how is the subject of a bird's willingness to take a bullet for its mate an important one?

1- Yes, l think it is all very clear according to what other people from other groups have told me.
2- Isn't it an important subject to sacrifice yourself to save your mate?

"1- Yes, l think it is all very clear according to what other people from other groups have told me."

Which groups are these? Google shows that your piece has been published to only one site other than DUP  (i.e. the vanity site All Poetry). And do the opinions (?) you mention come from anyone who is not a sycophant of yours and who, unlike them,  actually has the acumen to distinguish good poetry from bad.  Ds Odins [sic] Crow,: Newunewyear, and Scroobily (none of whom say anything about how clear your piece is)    possess it?  

"2- Isn't it an important subject to sacrifice yourself to save your mate?

But it is not something that birds do.  So to write about how a bird, instead of a human being,  was willing to lay down his life for the sake of another is to make a reader think that you are very odd to do so and to put a reader off from wanting to read about what is an absurdity.

And then there's the larger question of whether or not the way that you have set this subject out is such that readers will marvel at your linguistic artistry.

1- l think that this is not true to say one other group of poetry. Anyhow we don't care about other groups or what they say, but about you who criticize a poem without understanding its meaning. How dare you do that?
2- Birds don't sacrifice themselves to save their mates. How dare you say that when you talk about poetry? Is there no symbolism in poetry, Baldwin?

"1- l think that this is not true to say one other group of poetry [sic]" .    
 
What I said was that Google shows that you have posted this piece to one other poetry sire.   Please name the other sites that you have posted this submission to other poetry sites where people there have said that it was clear as to which bird was wounded and which was not. The fact that you haven't done so indicates that you were lying when you noted that this was clear to people on poetry sites other than DUP.  
   
"Anyhow [,] we don't care about other groups or what they say, "  
   
Then why did you use the (alleged) fact that people on other sites thought your piece was clear with respect to the gender of the wounded bird as evidence that I was wrong in saying it wasn't?  
   
i"2- Birds don't sacrifice themselves to save their mates. How dare you say that when you talk about poetry? Is there no symbolism in poetry, "  
   
The is no indication in your submission that the birds you speak of are symbols for something else or that you are using symbolism to make your point.  
 
P.S.  I note now that there are two other sites where you have posted your submission to.  But the few people who have expressed a "like" for it are your sycophants.  And quite contrary to your claim about their responses to your submission,  they do not say, if they say anything at all,  that they think it is clear that the wounded bird you speak of is male.

"It was shot but saved the upper
bird and was content for its act."

Proper English would be ""... was content WITH this act".

"content for"  means that one "is willing to do or accept something, rather than doing more" --  which is hardly what you wanted to convey.

"Its relaxed face sent a message",

Do birds have facial muscles that are used to express states of being?  If not, then a bird cannot have a relaxed face, let alone one that sends a message.

"I'm so glad to have this fortune."

Better "I m glad to be this fortunate"

You don't understand that meter for me is essential, and you have very little knowledge how to use it or else, you don't advise me to use wrong ideas. Therefore you say i should have written this or that.

"You don't understand that meter for me is essential",  
 
I understand that you (correctly) think meter is an essential element in distinguishing poetry from prose. Where did I dispute this?  
 
The question is, however, whether the lines of what you write and post here are medically sound.  
 
"and you have very little knowledge [of] how to use it"  
 
I'd be grateful if you'd provide evidence for this claim.  
 
"or else, you don't advise me to use wrong ideas"  
 
Leaving aside the fact that this claim is poorly worded  (it should be "and so [given that you don't know how to use meter} you shouldn't advise me to ...",  it is not clear how advising you to use "wrong ideas" has anything to do with whether the lines in your piece are metrically sound (which, BTW, is an issue I dod nor raise), let alone that how I thought a line of yours should be written to be clear **in meaning** is a "wrong idea".  
 
BTW, my suggestions for how certain of your lines should have been written to be colloquially correct and clear in meaning are metrically sound.

Thank you very much, Boyana. I'll never forget your encouragement. I highly appreciate it.