Sick or injured wild animals: should we intervene or not?

Should we intervene or not when it comes to a wild species in an urban setting? This ethical dilemma pits two perspectives against each other: interventionism, based on the duty to reduce animal suffering, and conservationism, which favours non-interference with natural dynamics.

If you ask a biologist, a veterinarian or another wildlife professional whether to intervene when a wild animal is in trouble in an urban environment, you’ll likely be met with a thoughtful silence, followed by a deep breath. You’ve just opened a debate as old as it is complex.

The interventionist argument often rests on the duty to reduce animal suffering, especially when that suffering is caused by humans. In such cases, the idea is to intervene to “correct the mistake.” But a simplistic view of intervention can also lead to harmful and unforeseen consequences. This is where the precautionary principle comes in, as there are countless examples of humans trying to help—only to make things worse.

Anthromorphism: a powerful bias

In urban environments, the phenomenon of anthropomorphism is on the rise. We tend to attribute human emotions and behaviours to animals, influenced by our closeness to pets, level of education and distance from wildlife. This perception amplifies the temptation to intervene.

Our relationship with wildlife depends on how close we are to it: people who interact daily with wild animals, such as farmers, tend to see them through a functional, ecological lens—very different from the more emotional view often found in urban settings.

Disease and animal suffering: natural realities

Humans tend to idealize nature, forgetting that competition, disease and predation are ever-present. Take the wildebeest (an African mammal), for example: while most migrate, feed and reproduce, others (those that are weaker) go hungry, get sick or fall prey to predators. These realities, though difficult to witness, are an integral part of ecological processes.

Disease acts as a regulator of animal populations. And even within a healthy population, each individual experiences a very different reality when it comes to well-being.

The case of the red fox and mange

Historical records report cases of mange in foxes as far back as the 18th century. The disease is recognized as endemic in the species. Whether we see it or not, a small percentage of the North American fox population is affected.

This raises ethical questions about whether or not to treat the disease, since it likely plays a role in regulating red fox population cycles. Our coexistence with urban wildlife prompts many questions for which we don’t yet have all the answers. The main one is: should they be treated or not?

As an example, let’s consider a fictional goal: eradicating mange from the red fox population on the Island of Montréal. Here are some of the factors that would need to be taken into account:

• How realistic this goal would be over time: the movement of foxes makes reinfection likely. If so, how quickly would it happen?
• The effectiveness of our treatment efforts in reaching the entire target fox population, since reinfection could cancel out our progress.
• The proportion of foxes with mange that are visible to humans; this group is likely more noticeable because of human feeding.
• Aggravating human factors: increased disease transmission caused by human behaviour such as feeding, or a rise in fox density due to increased food availability.
• The ecological consequences of treating this disease in foxes: by favouring sick individuals, what changes might we be introducing into the ecosystem?
• The risk to human health in this context (very low, but present).
• Undesirable side effects of treatment on the foxes (overdose, captivity, stress, etc.).
• The resources required to achieve this goal in terms of time, money and infrastructure.
• The priority of this initiative compared to other issues.

In this delicate balance, we need to apply the precautionary principle while questioning the human role—real or self-assigned—when it comes to wild animal populations.

The clearest example of our failure when intervening is the feeding of wildlife. Doing so increases the risk of disease and creates a dependence on humans that lowers their chances of survival. It also encourages conflicts between and within species and can even cause malnutrition. Not to mention the risks to the people feeding these animals, such as injuries and disease transmission.

The relationship between humans and animals has always existed and probably always will. The desire to care for animals with compassion comes from the best part of us: our empathy, kindness and generosity. But before taking action, a thoughtful and in-depth analysis is required, in consultation with experts, to assess all possible consequences.