Cases of getting Ebola from an animal are about as rare as someone getting HIV from a monkey nowadays. This is evident in the fact that there's really only been enough major outbreaks of Ebola to count on two hands, if not one. Contain the illness, then worry about the source.
If the virus were one that jumps species very frequently, then they'd have to worry about the source. But it's not really something that I think they should focus on right now.
No, you're completely wrong about that. How do you think an outbreak starts? With an infected animal, of course. It's most definitely not as rare as you're claiming for it to be. In fact,
in past outbreaks, a lot of people got Ebola just from touching (and eating too, of course) infected primates. Plus, you're forgetting how new this disease is - and the fact that so much is unknown and that so much research is still being done (for example, if dogs can get infected with Ebola). The number of previous outbreaks is completely irrelevant to this outbreak and the fact that the disease can be easily spread though animal contact, but it does prove that you can't claim something such as that it's rare to get Ebola from an infected animal, because of the newness of the disease and the ongoing research. Seriously the disease was only discovered in 1976. There have been a total of about 28 Ebola outbreaks since then, by the way. Whether the outbreak is major or not is irrelevant as well... perhaps some of the less serious outbreaks had more infected animals involved and the sources were identified (that's how it seems to be with at least some of the cases). Ever think of that? Who says that an outbreak consisting of cases based on animal contact have to be major outbreaks? If it's that obvious as to what the source is, it doesn't make sense for the outbreak to be "major". You're also forgetting that each outbreak has the possibility of belonging to a different species of the virus. The mortality rate of the specific species has to be factored in to whether an outbreak is "major" or not. The current outbreak belongs to the Zaire species, which has a really high mortality rate (of about 88%), is also considered to be the most deadly, and is responsible for the largest number of outbreaks. However, new species are also still being discovered with each outbreak (the last one discovered was in about 2007), so you can't compare one outbreak to another unless the exact conditions are the same, especially considering early treatment of those infected is critical in determining their survival, thus lowering the chance of an outbreak being a "major" one.
And if the illness can't be contained due to an active source, I repeat: it's pointless. If it can be contained, then that's a different story. But it's been almost a year so far and it hasn't been able to, so that says something.
I never said it jumped species frequently. However, it's certainly possible for an infected animal to infect another species - specific ones only (some mammals), of course, but it can spread to other species nonetheless. Yet again, every single case doesn't necessarily come from human contact; it's obviously a strong possibility that some of these cases are coming from contact with an infected animal. Right now, animals aren't thought to be majorly involved with this outbreak, however, you never know, and that's exactly my point. If they're still researching it, then it's obviously a possibility. Actually, it's part of a
preventative measure used with outbreaks. Not only are people advised to keep animal contact rare and handle infected animals with protective care, but the meat of suspected infected animals needs to be cooked thoroughly. You act like it's not a possibility or something that they've considered because it poses no threat, but you're wrong, and that's proven by the actions that are being taken with suspected animals (and there actually seem to have been some cases confirmed to be transmitted through animal contact during this outbreak, but obviously the CDC won't release specific numbers - at least I've yet to see any). Anything is a possibility, and that's my point. I don't really care what they do unless it affects me personally, however, I do believe more than what is currently being done could be done.
Overall, we'll just have to see though. If they don't contain it soon, they'll eventually look more into the original source and any ongoing sources anyway.
I also survived Pertussis as a baby, Strep, and Pneumonia. I won't deny vaccinations have helped to control/prevent these diseases, but it's amazing how both doctors and the media use these scare tactics to convince you that you'll most definitely die/kill someone else if you're not immunized. For the record, I haven't had a flu shot in my life. 
The same scare tactics are being used for Ebola and the Enterovirus. Of course, the believers in Big Pharma will tell you there's more to it. I can't decide how I feel about that bit.
My point is, many people will believe whatever the media and medical "experts" tell us. Through the fear mongering, many people allow themselves to be convinced it's the 
By ALL means inform us, but don't scare us. I didn't realize clicks were more important than hysteria.