Reducing Wild Animal Suffering Effectively: Why Impracticability and Normative Objections Fail Against the Most Promising Ways of Helping Wild Animals

ABSTRACT

This paper presents some of the most promising ways wild animals are currently being helped, as well as other ways of helping that may be implemented easily in the near future. They include measures to save animals affected by harmful weather events, wild animal vaccination programs, and projects aimed at reducing suffering among synanthropic animals. The paper then presents other ways of helping wild animals that, while noncontroversial, may reduce aggregate suffering at the ecosystem level. The paper argues that impracticability and normative objections against reducing wild animal suffering fail against these ways of helping wild animals.

KEYWORDS:

• Wild animals
• wild animal suffering
• wild animal vaccination
• wild animal welfare science

Acknowledgment

We thank Kyle Johannsen for helping to improve this paper with his comments and suggestions.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The main results of the survey were as follows (see Animal Ethics, 2020b for more details).

92% of scholars agreed that work on urban animals’ wellbeing would produce important and useful knowledge. 89% of them agreed in the case of wild animal vaccination; and 85% agreed in the case of helping wild animals harmed by weather events. Among students, 93% agreed in the case of work on urban animals; 89% agreed in the case of vaccination; and 81% agreed in the case of animals in weather events.

85% of scholars agreed that work on urban animals would be supported by fellow scientists. 80% of them agreed in the case of vaccination; and 74% agreed in the case of animals in weather events. Among students, 81% agreed that work on urban animals would be supported by their professors, 72% agreed in the case of vaccination; and 71% agreed in the case of animals in weather events. In addition, 86% agreed that work on urban animals would be supported by fellow students, 82% agreed in the case of vaccination; and 77% agreed in the case of animals in weather events.

Finally, 62% of scholars agreed that work on urban animals would be supported by their university departments. 56% of them agreed in the case of vaccination; and 73% agreed in the case of animals in weather events.