Wild animals suffer due to human activity, yet natural factors contribute far more significantly to their suffering. In light of this, some propose that we have a pro tanto obligation to intervene in ecosystems to improve wild animal welfare. However, critics contend that the complexity of nature renders such interventions unpredictable, ineffective, or potentially harmful. This article seeks to reconcile the moral imperative to reduce wild animal suffering with the widespread concern about the inherent risks of such interventions. The article begins with the premise that, if we have a pro tanto obligation to reduce wild animal suffering, only conducting research for the purpose of informing interventions in some distant future would be insufficient. Wild animals are suffering en masse now, and we must consider whether interventions can be justified despite incomplete knowledge. This question is explored here within a consequentialist and sentientist ethical framework. I argue that, while precaution is crucial to avoid irreversible or welfare-reducing ecological changes, interventions can be justified if they offer significant welfare benefits to animals while posing relatively small ecological risks. The article concludes by proposing four types of interventions that are likely to meet these criteria.

The full article is free to access here.