Abstract
Human activities and climate change have contributed to a dramatic decline in populations and species, and conservation activities are required to slow this decline. Conservation of nature is considered worthwhile by many, but for different reasons. This means that ideas about our moral obligations to protect nature, including our obligations to individual wild animals, vary. Because of this, no simple environmental ethic is likely to be adequate to guide practical decision making in conservation, particularly in situations where the protection of ecological wholes (e.g. species) impacts negatively on individual animals. Here, a practical 'ethical' approach is suggested that accommodates both the desire to conserve nature and concerns about the welfare of individual wild animals. According to this approach, our main obligation is to those sentient wild animals in whose lives we have interfered. In undertaking conservation activities that may harm individual wild animals, we are obliged to maximize the benefits of those activities and minimize any negative welfare impacts. This can be done by evaluating the relative impacts of various existing methods, choosing the most humane method, applying it in the best possible way and continuing to research more humane alternatives. This approach is illustrated by the case of the lethal control of possums in New Zealand using toxic agents. The general advantages and limitations of this 'compassionate' approach to conservation are discussed. With the continuing 'shrinking of the wild', consideration of animal welfare will become increasingly important, not only to justify conservation activities but also for achieving conservation goals.