While traditional conservation efforts focus on preserving species and habitats, they often overlook individual animal welfare in the wild. Advocates are working to establish wild animal welfare as a recognized scientific discipline, urging experts to consider and mitigate both human-caused and natural harms. The movement envisions large-scale interventions to systematically improve wild animal welfare across ecosystems. However, despite growing interest, there is a lack of centralized information on the practical actions and initiatives advancing this cause.

This report sought to fill this gap by offering a comprehensive overview of the field’s current state, trends, and key elements. It examines the work of five organizations: Wild Animal Initiative, Welfare Footprint, Animal Ethics, Animal Charity Evaluators, and New York University’s Wild Animal Welfare Program, to identify commonalities and areas for improvement within the movement.

Using a mixed-methods approach, the authors analyzed publicly available information from the organizations’ websites, reports, and strategic documents. They used this material to draft a preliminary understanding of each group’s “theory of change” — the conceptual framework outlining how their activities are expected to achieve their goals in wild animal welfare. To refine and validate these analyses, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with organizational leaders in April 2023 and February 2024, which helped clarify benchmarks and the challenges these organizations face.

The authors classified the organizations’ programs into eight distinct categories of activities: Intervention Implementation, Intervention Development, Outreach, Lobbying, Organization Evaluation, Scientific Research, Desk Research, and Grantmaking. These activities were then evaluated against three preconditions necessary for widespread improvements in wild animal welfare: Valid Measurement, Technical Ability, and Stakeholder Buy-In. This structured methodology provided a roadmap for advancing the field by highlighting its current strengths and weaknesses.

The analysis revealed several commonalities among the five organizations:

• Academic Outreach as a Core Strategy: All the organizations prioritize academic outreach as they work to gain scientific support, credibility, and to sustain the new field long-term.
• Cautious Approach to Intervention: These organizations are careful and deliberate about promoting large-scale interventions in natural processes, such as disease and starvation, due to potential risks like reputational damage or loss of public support.  
• Species Prioritization: Most organizations concentrate on mammals and birds, with less attention given to other species, especially invertebrates and fish.
• Insufficient Funding: Scarcity of funds is a major obstacle for establishing wild animal welfare as a science and practice. Ambitious projects and the overall growth of the field are stalled as they struggle to support more research projects, expand their programs, and build stronger academic and community infrastructures.

The report indicates that there is still a general lack of awareness and understanding about wild animal welfare among scientists, policymakers, and the public. This affects the quality and relevance of grant proposals, the development of efficacious interventions, and the overall buy-in from key stakeholders who are essential for installing large-scale changes.

The authors compared the movement’s needs with the present activities of the organizations, which indicated the following gaps: 

• Stunted Technical and Methodical Development: No organization is currently working on the technical tools needed to help wild animals effectively, possibly due to a need for better welfare measurement methods. This lack of focus on technical development may further stem from the organizations’ expertise lying in other areas.
• Discounting Abundant Species: Understudied species, often the most abundant in ecosystems,  are known to have essential roles in the overall health of their ecosystems, but current academic outreach fails to emphasize their significance. This could limit the efficacy of large-scale attempts to improve wild animal welfare.
• Narrow Outreach: While targeting academia is important, the movement risks neglecting other crucial groups, such as policymakers and industry stakeholders, who are instrumental to achieving broader outcomes.
• Limited Direct Interventions: Aside from grants provided by Animal Charity Evaluators, none of the interviewed organizations are currently funding or implementing direct measures to help wild animals. This reflects concerns that rushing into actions could backfire, either by harming the animals or reducing stakeholder support. Large-scale interventions may not yet be feasible, however, starting with smaller, less controversial actions could help build support for future endeavors.

This report is limited by its focus on a select group of organizations, which may not represent the entire wild animal welfare movement. Still, for animal advocates, it highlights the critical need to diversify outreach efforts beyond academia, raising awareness of wild animal welfare among the general public and policymakers. The findings further emphasize the importance of securing funding to establish wild animal welfare as a credible discipline, advance its methodologies, and apply effective interventions.