Few topics create as much unease in wildlife conservation and management as animal welfare. Raise it in a room full of wildlife professionals and you’re likely to encounter everything from enthusiastic agreement to deep scepticism. Some see it as an essential part of responsible wildlife management. Others worry it is a back door for animal rights arguments that could undermine activities such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife harvesting. I experienced it first-hand in 2025 I was part of a group developing a new framework for assessing the sustainability of wild species use. Alongside the familiar economic, social, and ecological dimensions, we proposed adding two others: human health and animal welfare.

When the framework was published, it sparked lively debate amongst the more than 300 members of the IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group. For some, the inclusion of animal welfare raised concerns that it could ultimately undermine all forms of lethal wildlife use, including hunting and fishing. Others argued that animal welfare had always been part of responsible wildlife management, particularly where animals are captured or killed. Some pointed to hunting ethics, hunter education programmes, and humane trapping standards as evidence that welfare is not a new concept in conservation. One comment in particular stayed with me:

“the world has moved on” and “animal welfare concerns matter greatly to some people – to the extent that they can’t be ignored… simply because what is not socially sustainable is not ultimately sustainable.”

We’ve been at this crossroad before

Public concern about animal welfare is not new. In fact, it was growing public concern about cruelty that first drove the development of welfare standards for domesticated animals in the UK before spreading to the US, Europe, and beyond. The world’s first animal protection law, the UK’s Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act of 1822, recognised that animals could suffer. Soon afterwards, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) was established to promote the humane treatment of livestock and working animals, enforce the law, and campaign against practices considered cruel such as cock-fighting and bull-baiting.

Since then, animal welfare standards have continued to evolve. As farming intensified and the use of animals in research expanded, welfare standards grew to cover how livestock and laboratory animals were housed, handled, transported, and killed. Over time, the focus shifted beyond preventing cruelty to promoting positive welfare and recognising a duty of care towards animals. More recently, many countries have also begun recognising animal sentience in law, leading to stronger welfare protections.

Wildlife is Next

Animal welfare is no longer confined to domesticated animals. Increasingly, it is influencing how wild animals are managed too. For many years, welfare standards applied mainly to captive wild animals, but they are now becoming part of broader wildlife management policy. In the UK, for example, welfare legislation applies whenever a wild animal comes under human control, even temporarily. Australia has codes for the humane culling of wild animals, while Canada has standards for wildlife trapping.

South Africa’s 2023 White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity states that all interactions with wild animals, whether for tourism, hunting, trade, research, or management, should respect their intrinsic value, sentience, and quality of life.

For some, this represents a welcome evolution. For others, it raises difficult questions about who gets to define welfare, whether welfare could override sustainable use principles, and whether concepts developed largely in the Global North can be applied universally across different social and ecological contexts.

Yet South Africa is not an outlier. These developments reflect a broader shift in international conservation policy. In 2022, the UN Environment Assembly recognised that animal welfare, environmental conservation, and sustainable development are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Later in 2026, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity will consider guidance on Sustainable Wildlife Management that also refers to animal welfare.

The growing focus on wildlife welfare is also reflected in emerging research. One example is a major collaborative study led by researchers at the University of Oxford, which is examining the welfare outcomes associated with different causes of death in wild animals, both natural and human-induced. While the findings have yet to be published, the study reflects a broader recognition that understanding and improving wildlife welfare is becoming an increasingly important part of conservation and wildlife management.

The world has moved on, and we need to move with it

Whether we welcome these developments or not, they are changing the conservation landscape. Rather than resisting this shift, we should be asking how wildlife can be managed, harvested, handled, captured, transported, or killed in ways that minimise suffering and improve welfare wherever possible. The opportunity is to integrate welfare into conservation and wildlife management in practical, evidence-based ways that are appropriate to local contexts.

Yes, there are challenges to address. At the very least, we need more dialogue within our sector about what good animal welfare means for wild animals living in their natural environment, rather than kept animals under human care. But surely it is better to be on the front foot, demonstrating how wildlife management upholds internationally accepted welfare standards, than to find ourselves on the back foot defending practices many have already judged unacceptable.

By Prof Dilys Roe

‘On the Contrary…’ is a thought leadership series. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jamma Conservation & Communities. We provide a platform for diverse, evidence-based perspectives to inform and enrich the conservation conversation.