From the first link, which looked at attitudes among scholars and students in life sciences towards helping wild animals in urban settings, with vaccinations and for weather events:
Responses were mostly favorable in all cases. Levels of support and perceived support by others ranged, depending on the question, from over 60% to over 90%. Students and scholars tended to give similar responses. The level of support was highest in almost all cases for the second project, Urban Ecology. The first project, Vaccination, also received substantial support. It was ranked second except in one very important category – expected support at university departments, in which it was ranked third. The third project, Weather Effects, was ranked first in this category. The results showed no substantial conflict between the perceptions and attitudes among scholars and students.
I do not think large-scale efforts to help wild animals should be an EA cause at the moment, but in the long-term I don’t think environmentalist concerns will be a limiting factor.
For what it’s worth, I think the current focus is primarily research, advocacy for wild animals and field building, not the implementation or promotion of specific direct interventions.
To add to this, Animal Ethics has done some research on attitudes towards helping wild animals:
https://www.animal-ethics.org/survey-helping-wild-animals-scientists-students/
https://www.animal-ethics.org/scientists-attitudes-animals-wild-qualitative/ (another summary by Faunalytics)
From the first link, which looked at attitudes among scholars and students in life sciences towards helping wild animals in urban settings, with vaccinations and for weather events:
For what it’s worth, I think the current focus is primarily research, advocacy for wild animals and field building, not the implementation or promotion of specific direct interventions.
Thank you for those links.